tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN August 2, 2013 2:00pm-8:01pm EDT
secure. there is unanimity on that issue. and in fact the senate appropriated a large number of dollars to accomplish that objective. . we have not taken up an immigration bill in this house. and certainly because we have not, we haven't gone to conference. and then, mr. speaker, we took up a farm bill on the floor of his house, significantly after the senate had passed a bipartisan bill dealing with agriculture, and dealing with assistance to those in america, the richest country on the face of the earth, who are going hungry, a large number of whom are children who live in america.
the committee on agriculture passed out a bipartisan bill in the last congress and it was never brought before my republican friends. this year the committee also passed out a bipartisan bill that was brought to this floor. it could have and should have been passed with a bipartisan vote. not because i agreed with all of it, but because it was appropriate to have a bill to go to conference with on this important subject. our republican friends added three amendments which we harmful to clearly those in need in america. as a result, we didn't vote for it, but that's not why it
failed, mr. speaker. it failed because 62 republicans voted against the bill reported out with every republican voting in committee for it. one was mr. lucas, the chairman of the committee observed, it apparently wasn't good enough for those 62 republicans. compromise seems very difficult for some people in this house. but i again remind us all it is absolutely essential. it we then passed a farm bill which said, unlike the last half a century, we would drop food assistance to the needy in america. mr. speaker, my faith tells me tole it try to feed the hungry,
house the homeless, clothe the naked. tend to the least of these. he bill that we passed for the first time in a half century left out the neediest in america. in the course of passing that bill, the chairman of the rules committee, mr. speaker, said, when passing this bill so that we can go to conference. with a clear implication at that point in time, because the senate bill does take care of the neediest who are hungry, adults and children, along with the needs of our farmers who produce our food and fiber on , the all of us rely
implication clearly was that with this bill we can go to conference. mr. speaker, you and i both know we haven't gone to conference. so we leave here with much of he business of america undone, unattended, without an effort to reach compromise. mr. speaker, additionally, as you know, on september 30 the authorization for the operation of government and the funding thereof will come to an end on september 30. so it will be necessary for us to come to agreement. i hope that i -- but i know of none, that there are being plans made to utilize these next five weeks to try to reach a compromise, an agreement, a way
forward to assure the funding of our government and the operations so critical to so many millions not only here but round the world. mr. speaker, we begin the july work period with -- began the july work period with a measure of optimism. with four full weeks of session in july and the first few days met that we have not optimism. there was much reason to hope this house could make serious headway on appropriations bills and reach a compromise on student loans. now, we passed that student loan compromise this wednesday. that was a good thing to do. and it was along the lines that he president proposed some months ago.
my republican colleagues would rightfully say it was along the lines that they had proposed and passed this house. and of course our senate colleagues will say it is the compromise that the senate formed and that we passed. but in this time the majority strategy for moving appropriations bills through this house has utterly and completely failed. the ryan budget, the ryan retreat as i call it, has failed. with four full consecutive weeks in which to get things done, we have not enacted a single appropriation bill that was consistent with either the budget control act of 2011 or this year's ryan budget. in fact, we haven't enacted a single appropriation bill, period.
now, we passed bills through this house, but we haven't been able to get to compromise. that's not unusual. we found the appropriations process difficult over the past two years. but it is still an indication of reach to attempt to compromise that we have not gone to a budget conference to determine what numbers we will use. because if you can't agree on a number or numbers, it is impossible to agree on legislation. frankly, mr. speaker, i sadly note that my majority friends in the majority have not even had the courage or in my opinion the
intellectuales to gto conference on the budget to resolve these differences. why? because i believe that mr. ryan believes that any compromise he made would not be supported by his party. because they don't want a compromise. which is an anathema to many of our republican colleagues. regular order it seems means imply their order. now as i have said we are leaving for the august recess with just nine legislative days remaining until the end of the fiscal year. nine days. that's what is scheduled for legislative business between now and september 30. nine days.
as i said, not a single appropriation bill has been sent to the president's desk. a bill that we were considering this week, supposed to be the principal item of business this week, was taken from the floor because it did not have the support of the majority party. this is not a recipe for responsible governance by the majority. it is a recipe for another manufactured crisis, that of a government shut down. mr. speaker, our economy, our businesses, and our middle class families cannot and ought not endure further uncertainty as a result of this congress' failure to do its job. the most egregious manifestation of the majority's failure to govern has been the irrational sequester policy that they not only refuse to prevent but have
now fully embraced. why do i say they fully embraced it? because it gets to their number included in the ryan budget without them having to make one single choice of cutting a single item. it simply says, this is the number, meet it. no prioritization, no choice t. no decision. -- no choice, no decision. the ryan budget passed this house in march without a single democratic vote. an endorsement in theory by this republican congress of cuts even deeper than the sequester imposes. let me say parenthetically, a lot of my republican colleagues will stand at that podium, or
one of these podiums, and say, this is the president's sequester. mr. speaker, america needs to know that is not true. and i believe too many make that statement know it not to be true. we pass legislation in this of in the middle of july 2011 which said, we are going to reach certain numbers and if we don't we are going to have a sequester. mr. speaker, you may recall that that was the republican cut, cap, and balance bill. whose policy was to have a sequester if the numbers set forth were not reached.
that was before it was included in the bill which was a compromise to reach resolution so that america did not default n its bills. i was not for the sequester. the president was not for the sequester. and we democrats voted overwhelming, almost animously, perhaps unanimously, against that cut, cap, and balance bill and its sequester. why? because cutting across the board the highest priority and lowest priority by exactly the same percentage is an irrational policy. no family in america would do it. mr. speaker, the example i use is that somebody in the family loses their job, the family income goes down, they have a budget. they have a budget for food and
they have a budget for movies. sequester says take 10% from food and 10% from movies. there is no rational family in america that would do that. they would say, this month or this six months or this year we are not going to the movies. we are going to keep food on the table. that's the rational judgment that we would make. but that's not what sequester ays. having said that, we have offered amendments seven times in the last six months to setaside the sequester while at reducing the deficit by the same amount. seven times we were refused by the majority party the opportunity to even offer that
amendment. to have, as the speaker says he wants, to have the house work its will. and if they didn't agree with that amendment, they could have voted against it. but they didn't want to deal with our amendment because they liked the sequester. because the sequester gets them to their number without them having to make a decision on utting a single thing. as i predicted then when theory turns to practice in the ryan budget, even republicans themselves cannot live with the policies of their own chairman of the appropriation -- and their own chairman of the appropriations committee characterized just the other day , this was chairman rogers of kentucky, a conservative
re with whom i have worked for many, many years as a memb appropriations committee, he characterized the cuts included the ryan budget as, and i quote, unrealistic and ill-conceived, that's the republican chairman of the appropriations committee saying of the republican budget known as the ryan budget, unrealistic and ill-conceived. . and their policy of sequester remanes, mr. speaker, an albatross around the necks of the american people and our economy. if there were not a single democrat in this house or in the senate, not a single democrat, mr. speaker, it is my belief that the ryan budget ould not pass this congress.
he republican post-sequester spending cuts only approach simp by does not work and this week's transportation-h.u.d. appropriation debacle proves it. i want to quote, again, the chairman of the committee. with this action, the house has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just three months ago. let me make it clear. no democrat had the opportunity to vote on this. no democrat voted against this. we weren't for it, make no mistake, but the decision was made completely on the majority side of the aisle. that they didn't have the votes or their bill.
they could not implement the very budget that was adopted just three months ago. thus, mr. speaker, i believe the house has made its choice. said chairman rogers. sequestration and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to an end. so said hal rogers, republican, conservative, kentucky chairman of the appropriations committee. sequestration must be brought to an end. as i've said, mr. speaker, those are the words of hal rogers. not my words. his words. i know chairman rogers isn't the only member of his party fed up with he tea party faction and their extreme agenda. but as we prepare to go home to our districts over the month of
august and hear their concerns about jobs and our economy and the pain of sequesters -- of sequester's senseless cuts, i have spoken to hundreds of employees who work in our defensest tab learnment who are lamenting the fact that not -- lamenting the fact not only that they've been forced to take off one day a week for no pay and they can't even volunteer to work, who are lamenting the fact that those at the point of the spear in afghanistan, in other troubled parts of the world, they cannot take off friday. that we the support give them from here in this country and indeed around the world, the civilian work force, in d.o.d., department of defense, all the time. not just four days a week.
as we prepare to go home to our districts over the month of august as i said and hear their concerns and the pain of the sequester's senseless cuts, i hope we can turn the page of the july work period and return in a different spirit. september need not be july's second act. in the short time we have left, just nine legislative days before the fiscal year ends, i would urge the speaker to take a different path. instead of taking the familiar road of partisanship, posturing and spin, let us embrace a path of compromise and shared accomplishment. one we in this congress might call as the poet robert frost said, the road less traveled by. a wonderful poem.
of america's greatest poets. he said, i shall be telling this with a sigh somewhere ages and ages hence, two roads diverged in a wood and i, i took the one less traveled by. and that, he said, has made all the difference. we have difficult and pressing challenges to address in a short time. passing a budget, replacing the se quest we are a balanced alternative, and averting a default on our debt. a default which would be catastrophic for america, for its people, for its economy and would have ramifications throughout the world. we can begin, mr. speaker, by going to conference on the budget and allowing both sides to sit down and start working on an agreement.
that seems to be, mr. speaker, the road less traveled by. a road forward. a road that leads to positive, constructive, supportable results. not backward. a road to constructive compromise, not destruct i confrontation and to results that benefit our people and our economy. mr. speaker, such a road would urely make all the difference. for this congress and for this country. mr. speaker, we need to work together. newt gingrich, a former eaker, with whom i served, reached a compromise with president clinton.
there were a lot of people on his side of the aisle that didn't want to see an agreement between president clinton and speaker gingrich. it was on the funding of government. the basic responsibility this congress has, or any board of directors of any enterprise has. and mr. gingrich stood at that podium, mr. speaker, and talked o what he referred to as his perfectionist caucus. the people who wanted it their way. and were not prepared to ompromise. from a road other than their way he said, mr. speaker, to that perfectionist caucus, look, i know this is not exactly what you want. but the american people have elected a president of another party. bill clinton.
and they have elected a senate with a lot of democrats in there who don't agree with us, and yes, some republicans who don't agree with us. and they also elected a lot of democrats to the house of representatives. he said, obviously, that the majority of the member os they have house were republicans. but if the country was going to move forward, if there was going to be a positive resolution to the conflict that existed between differing points of view, that there would need to be compromise. and he admonoebbed that perfectionist caucus to understand that this was a democracy, not a dictatorship. and that agreement and compromise was the essence of what democracy meant.
so mr. speaker, i hope that over the five weeks that are to come, that members will reflect , communicate with our citizens, and come to an understanding of the necessity to act not just our way, or my way, not just to reflect what i want, but to reflect what we as a country working together can accomplish. mr. speaker, if we do that, america will continue to be the greatest country on the face of the earth, providing opportunity for our children and our families, our workers and our seniors, and continuing be that shining city on a hill of which ronald reagan spoke so glowingly.
mr. speaker, let us hope in hese five weeks we learn how to work together. that's what our people want. and as importantly, that is what our people need. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced spoil of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. the gentleman is recognized.
mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it's always such an honor to speak here on the floor. being in congress, well, it's where the fight for america is. and i appreciate it -- appreciated so much the comments as i sat here for some time listening to the former majority leader of the house talking about the need for bipartisanship, the importance of bipartisanship, the importance of working together, and the deepest regret i experienced in listening to that wonderful speech by my friend from maryland was that i didn't have a transcript of that speech to read him every single week that the democrats were in the majority here on
this floor and every single time that they came forward with a closed rule allowing no amendments, and in fact each time that it came to the floor that the democratic majority during those four years between january of 2007 and january of 2011 was the most closed congress in the history of the country with the least number of open rules, the least amount of bipartisanship. they rammed through the most important -- well, the most destructive bill in american history of the last 100 years that being the obut -- obamacare bill, without a single republican vote. there was no partisanship. so anyway, i thoroughly enjoyed the comments from my friend, the former majority leader, and gosh, i wish i could have read at back to him over and over
during the four years they were in the majority. he has such a great sense of humor, mr. speaker, i know he would have laughed over and over as i read it to him. in fact, just like the time that the majority leader was coming down the aisle, we were about to vote on the card check bill which meant it was going to eliminate secret ballots for ections and -- secret ballot would be eliminated for elections to be a unionized group or not to be and i was kidding around with my friend from maryland and as he came by i said, hey, led er, word here on -- leader, word here on the floor is you're about to vote against your party and against the card check bill to eliminate the -- so you're not going to be in agreement to eliminate secret ballots and he is so intelligent and great sense of humor, he said, he odds of that happen og infinitesimal and i said, well,
t's just that everybody on the floor knows that before nancy pelosi became speaker she promised john murtha would be majority leader and if you hadn't had a secret ballot, john murtha would be majority leader instead of you and he laughed, just great sense of humor. so i'm sure if i were able to go back in time and read our former majority leader's comments today about the importance of bipartisanship he would probably laugh as he did when he voted to end the secret ballot for union elections even though the secret ballot is what got him elected as majority leader. but there's some amazing things going on. it was huge when this congress did something a few weeks ago that people said couldn't be done and that was with regard to the agriculture bill and that was that many years ago, the agriculture bill, which s
quite small, comparatively, combined with the food stamp bill. and i wondered when i got here 1/2 years ago, why are the food fwmbings t of the a bill? -- part of the ag bill? and it was explained to me that this was strictly for political purposes because there are not enough farmers that have enough representation in congress to ever get a farm bill passed by itself and that there's enough people concerned about the waste in food stamp program and the abuses in the food stamp program that it might have a hard time just passing on its own without having a lot of restructuring and trying -- efforts to clean up the waste, fraud, and abuse, so by putting them together you combine enough votes from both sides of the aisle to get a farm bill
with food stamps passed but if you separate them you won't pass either one, at least not in that current form. . so it was historic why it was done and a number of us voted for the ag bill without the food stamm attached -- food stamp attached. we made it clear. we are not out to end the food stamp program. we know there are chronically poor people, some temporarily, that need food help. we want to help them. so we are not for taking food out of the mouths of children that don't feed -- can't feed themselves even though we are told that by people on the other side of the aisle. it broke my heart because i have a bunch of good friends, even though we are at different ends of the political spectrum, they come to the floor and say something that surely, surely i hope they didn't mean.
but they did say republicans trying to take food out of the mouths of children. well, that was rather tragic of them to say that since that was simply not true, and the heartbreak of having friends come down and make allegations that absolutely, unequivocally were not true, came rushing back as i heard our former majority leader say, that we were trying to eliminate food to the hungry when we made the point over and over and over -- no. it's tough being in the leadership of either party. you are constantly doing stuff. he probably didn't hear all of the times over and over where we said we are not eliminating the food stamp program. we are separating it from the ag bill. that's all. so make sure our friend understands, gets the message. we actually were not out to eliminate the food stamp program. but we sure do need to clean it up. i took grief for just telling a constituent that mentioned he
as standing in line at the grocery store, find somebody who had crab legs, and he was wishing he could afford to have crab legs. he looked at his ground meat and then when the person ahead of him got ready to pay for the crab legs he pulled out a food stamp card. i forget which washington rag it was, but one of them -- may not have even been washington, but the left wing went nuts talking about how i'm accusing people of squandering freshes food stamp money on crab legs when that was not the case at all. then right after that one of the washington papers did have a top page, front page story, and in that part of that story was a picture out here where seafood is sold, massive amount crabs
for sale with a big red sign saying food stamp cards welcome. so many great friends there, even though they are brilliant, like me ok, but they ran with the story about how the left wing made a big deal out of it and all they had to do was go to a seafood place. i also saw a picture that was not in the paper, massive crab legs, they take food stamps. so obviously it seemed that the left wing blogs in their attempt to smear me actually exposed once again their ignorance. there are a lot of things that need to be fixed up. we want to help people that need food that can't provide for themselves, but if they can work, it's a good thing to push people in to trying to reach their god-given potential. the problem with that is
especially for african-americans and i think they are the worst hit group in all of america with regard to unemployment, this president's policies have absolutely devastated african-american community in this country with a massive high unemployment rate. so i sure hope that we can change things because the unemployed of whatever race, creed, color, gender they deserve an opportunity. they deserve a chance at pursuing happiness. but these policies of this administration are making that ingreasingly difficult. that's why it really focused people's attention recently when the president came out in full
support and actually made it happen and said, you know what, speak into ing to being new law and cancel old law. i have said before some of the things this administration, this president has done are so unconstitutional, one of the things that ought to end up resulting is a massive class action by all the people that took his constitutional law course want their money back, because for any president to say i rammed through obamacare without a single republican vote, we didn't get any input from those people. we didn't want it. but you know what, it is such a disaster and i'm hearing from people that i have called fat cats before, big business folks, and they are saying it's going to devastate their business, so tell you what, i am going to postpone for a year big business
's requirement, big base being anybody over 50 employees, i'm going to postpone their requirements to follow the law. choose not to enforce the law so they can get away with not following it for a year. some ofhave listened to the president's incredible, amazing eloquence, some right here from this second podium here, expressing concerns for americans, but especially the poor and downtrodden. to me somebody that's making 11,000 is -- has got it tough. it's tough to live on $11,000 right now. but that's considered the poverty rate. it's right about $11,000. so under the obamacare bill that was shoved through the house and senate, unconstitutionally
because it included a tax, raised revenue, and did not originate in the house, and hopefully we'll get the supreme court's action on that, and they'll do the right thing unless somebody knows something about chief justice roberts, i don't. any way, it didn't originate in the house. i think we should ultimately get it struck down for that reason. they took a bill from the house, deleted every single word, and substituted therein about 2,500 pages was what my copy was i went through, for a tax credit for first time home buyers who were veterans or military. so obviously it was not germane and hopefully the supreme court will still do the right thing and strike it down. but in the meantime people are having to make preparation to live under it. that includes congress. except for the leaders and the committee staff members, all of
us in congress are going to be forced into the obamacare exchanges come january. so i have heard the president's speeches about caring so deeply about the middle class, former majority leader was talking about the middle class and what we need to do for them. but here again i keep coming back to obamacare. i was shocked when i read in the obamacare bill that if you cannot afford to buy the minimum health care bill mandated by the federal government in obamacare, then you're going to initially have a 1% extra income tax, but then it's going to end up going to 2.5% by 2016. i thought that's crazy. my friends across the aisle, president obama, they are always talking about how they care so deeply about those that are struggling and just doing everything they can to get by.
it just is shocking to come to realize they have no clue about the suffering that somebody making $14,000 is going to have whent on them by obamacare they can't -- if they are only making $14,000, then it's unlikely employers can be able to pay $7,000 for an insurance policy. so they'll be on their own. what we have heard is over and over, employers are trying to get down below 50 employees. i know a place, restaurant back in my hometown that indicated they are going to sell off a couple of their restaurants so they don't -- they can get under 50 because they can't afford to meet the mandate. a lot of people are losing their insurance despite the president's assurance that you wouldn't. that's happening all over the place. d it's happening ironically, this is kind of rich.
it really is rich. i hope america can see the humor. so many of our friends across the aisle say, over and over, these microphones, if you like your insurance, you can keep it. and then they passed a bill without a single republican vote that says, all those people that said that you can keep your insurance, they are not -- not one of them is going to keep their insurance. so it's kind of rich. it's a little humorous if you like sick irony. all these speeches about you don't like your insurance, they just quote the president. you can keep it. turns out they were all wrong and every member of congress is going to lose their insurance come january 1 unless they retire before january 1, then they actually can keep their insurance. then we find out today that actually there is an issue because the way obamacare was
did prevent the leaders of both parties, as i from and committee staffs having to be under obamacare. so the leaders, they are protected. they don't have to be under obamacare. and the committee staffs won't have to be -- all the rest of us, all the other members of congress, the rank and file, we are going to be under it. now we find out that there is a huge ambiguity because it doesn't say whether or not the continue vernment can to pay the 72% of the health care cost, the health insurance cost, for members of congress. right now members of congress we are on social security, despite what the email that's been going around says, we are under social security, we pay social security tax. all this stuff about golden
parachutes. you can retire and get every dime you make. so you don't have a golden parachute. i think most members have a 401-k-type thing where the government match up to 5% or 6% of what you put in. but it's the same retirement program that every single federal worker across america has. people forget that newt gingrich, i appreciate my friend from maryland bringing up newt gingrich, he's an amazing guy. he's a big idea guy. i like the way he thinks and we don't agree on all those big ideas. doesn't agree on mine, but he's got -- he comes up with some good ideas. and the contract with america, one of the big ideas was that was immensely popular, way over 70%, was that members of congress ought to live under the
same laws that everybody else in america does. and that passed. that was part of the contract, and they lived up to it. it became law. so members of congress have to live upped the same laws everybody else does. that's why after i have been cooking ribs to share in a bipartisan manner, not many days go by i don't have somebody on either side of the aisle say, louie, when are we going to get ribs again? the architects of the capitol found out, i thought he was a little overzealous, he feels like i violate some of the codes that everybody else in america has to live under, so i can't cook ribs. and we have had all kinds of media wanted to do something on me cooking ribs. president bush liked my ribs. people on both sides of the aisle. they may not vote for anything i'm for, but they love my ribs. it was a nice time. but the reason i can't cook ribs anymore is because we are living under the same laws as everybody else did and apparently the law that said you can't have fire within 10 feet of wood and
building structure. they shut me down. we are under the same laws as everybody else. and then it comes to obamacare anti-decision of -- by -- it wasn't by congress. i was grilling our republican leaders just earlier about exactly what's happening. the office of personnel management under the obama administration, has decided that the federal government will go ahead and come january we won't keep our samish shurens, i have a health savings account, they made sure i'm not going to get to keep my insurance, and we can't figure out what happens to the h.s.a., i'd like to drop obamacare insurance and just put oney into a health savings account, but they have even screwed us over with obamacare for that kind of thing. anyway, it looks like the obama n by the
administration will be that members of congress will have 72% of our health insurance paid by the taxpayers and what we have to borrow from china, of course, or other places. well, that's nice but if america is not playing under those same rules, it doesn't seem fair for us. and i'm hopeful when we get back, maybe we can get a bipartisan bill through that just says, everybody in america can opt out of obamacare and not pay a fine, not pay a tax or whatever you want to call it. and provide what they feel like is appropriate. but it all ought to be fair across the board. and now the issue has gotten rather large since we find out the i.r.s. truly has been targeting, after 2010 when the president said, you know, how
much they wanted to stop the tea parties, he felt they were a threat to america, they were a blessing to america, they were a threat to an oppress i government because everybody i've run into, i've talked to people in all kinds -- of all kinds of national origins, of races, both genders, all kinds of folks that tea party -- at tea party events and the only thing i find they have in common, they're all paying income tax. they're all paying income tax. and the president felt like this group needed to go -- be gone after and he made comments to that effect and somebody, and we need to fiend out whom, was the top person in the administration but appears it at least goes back to the president's own hand-picked council, as far as who knew who par tess pated and of course there's been a denial just like there was during watergate but we'll see what the truth is, even though there's a lot of obfuscation in the process.
it's egard to the i.r.s., clear, we should not have the i.r.s. involved in our health care at all, ever. and yet they are a central part of obamacare. and we find out this week, reading the story, changed some but basically a couple were wondering why law enforcement showed up at their home when they had looked online for a pressure cooker and a backpack. turned out one of them looked at something else, but they were no threat to anybody. but it gives rise to the thought, who is monitoring every website every american goes to? must be the n.s.a. i attended a classified briefing, i can't go into anything there, but it appeared before the briefing very clear
to me and i still feel this way, that when you blind yourself as to who the enemy is, as we have, purging all kinds of material from our f.b.i. training materials, state department, intelligence materials, as to who radical islamists really are and what they believe, you blind our law enforcement, our security people from the ability to see your enemy. we're not protected. when you have an open border where people are coming across at will and border patrolmen have told us three to four times faster than they ever have since we started talking about handing out legal status to anybody who happened to be here by a certain date, all this talk about amnesty, citizenship, all these other things, do they get benefits? not get benefits? all this talk has increased the number of people coming in by about three to five times. the border is not secure. when you don't control what
kind of terrorists may be coming into your country and you don't -- you don't train your law enforcement, your terrorist discerning folks, who it is that are the terrorists, and you keep pulling back our ability to see who our enemy really is, then it appears the solution is to have the federal government more intrusive than any of us ever dreamed it would be. and then you couple that with what we found out yesterday, and this article is tated gust 1, 2013, and it's entitled exclusive, dozens of c.i.a. operatives on the ground during benghazi attack and in part it points out, cnn has learned the c.i.a. is involved in what one source calls an
unprecedented attempt to keep e spy agencies' benghazi secrets from ever leaking out. sense january, some operatives involved in the mission in libya have been subjected to frequenting even monthly, polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's working. the goal of the questioning, according to sources, is so -- is to fiend out if anyone is talking to the media or to congress. it is being described as pure intimidation with the threat that any unauthorized c.i.a. employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career. exclusive communications obtained by cnn, one insider writes, you don't jeopardize yourself, you jepartize your family as well. another says, quote, you have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation, unquote. quote, agency employees typically are polygraphed every
three to four years, never more than that, unquote, said former c.i.a. operative and cnn analyst robert bayer. in other words, the rate of the alleged by graphs sources is rare. so says the cnn article. quote if somebody is being polygraphed every month or every two months, it's called an issue polyfwraff and the polygraph division suspects something, or are looking for something, but it is not routine at all to be poly fwraffed monthly or bimonthly, said bayer. a source now tells cnn at thaurm -- that the number, talking about the number at the benghazi mission, was 35 with as many as seven wounded, some seriously. while it is still not known how many of them were c.i.a., a source tells cnn that 21 americans were working in the building known as the aneblings, believed to be run by the agency. talking about the c.i.a.
about congressman frank wolf, their friend -- dear friend, says wolf has gone to the house board asking for a select committee to be set up a watergate style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in ben fwawsee and fiend out what the state department an c.i.a. were doing there. more than 150 fellow republican members of congress have seened his request and just this week eight republicans sent a letter to the new head of the f.b.i. asking that he brief congress within 0 days. in the aftermath of the attack, wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with the c.i.a. operatives and contractors who wanted to talk. then suddenly, there was silence. and i can verify that problem as well from some of the people that were going to talk to me and then all of a sudden they went silent and said, no, i'm not going to talk. quote, initially, they were not
afraid to come forward. they wanned the opportunity and wanted to be subpoenaed because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before congress, that's all changed, said woeful. -- said wolfe. speculation included that benghazi were helping to move missiles out of the area and into the hands of syrian rebels. there were two departments operating in benghazi, the state department and c.i.a. state department said it was only helping the new libyan government destroy weapons deemed, quote, damage, age, or too unsafe to retain, unquote, and it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other couldn't res. the state department also clearly told cnn they, quote, can't speak for any other agencies, unquote, and the c.i.a. would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of weapons or not. so perhaps that wasinon
but we still have got to get to the bottom of why four great heroic americans were allowed to be killed, were put in a situation like that, what difference does it make at this point? it makes a difference at this component or a year from now or two years from now or 3 1/2 years from now because people need to understand, they need to understand clearly, when somebody's life is taken, normally, if a criminal law is involved, the statute of limitations are a lot longer and eric holder, i can assure you, will not be attorney general for the next four years. three and a half years from now, swreel a new administration. and we will hopefully get to the bottom of these scandals and they're not phony. we know that because the president has assured us back when they first arose he was going to get to the bottom of it. and unlike what one of the
family members of those killed at benghazi told me there at the ceremony, sec retear clinton said, we're going to get the guy that did the video and all they wanted was to get justice from those who caused the death of their loved one. we owe that to them, mr. speaker. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the seattle's time has expired. -- the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 22, 113th congress, i move that the house do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to
>> united states is closing its embassies and consulates throughout the muslim world on sunday all stop they issued a travel alert today, a worldwide travel alert, saying in part that terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons, and target official and private interests. u.s. citizens are minded of the potential for terrorist to attack tourist infrastructure. that is from the state department, earlier today. coverageeekend, live of the national governors association's annual summer meeting, in milwaukee, ms. constant. the governors discussed national infrastructure and the global economy. sunday, live at noon. book tv. your questions for author ben carson. and on american history tv,
1968, from the assassinations of martin luther king jr. and robert kennedy to the tet offensive. sunday at 1:00. >> c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of target industry. we are c-span, created 30 years ago, and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now, you can watch us in hd. earlier today, a house oversight subcommittee held a hearing on weapons management by the national park service. bishop andssman rob park service director jonathan jarvis discussed recent problems regarding management, >> mr. journalist, you gave a
nice spin their. who is ultimately responsible? >> i am the director. >> you are r how about ms. chambers question mark -- chambers? >> she is also responsible. 2008 report showed problems. all of you were on the job then. history jarvis, what did you do to implement the findings of the 2009 reports? >> i was unaware of that report. >> but it came under your watch. this report was permitted. what did you do about it? even if it came out after you took office, what should you have done about it? >> i should hold my supervisors
to follow procedure. >> mr. chambers, you are throwing everyone under the bus. how much accountability should you have? full accountability. >> you taken full responsibility >> yes. >> what actions have you taken? what about your responsibility question mark -- ? >> so you are blaming other people. >> it is my responsibility. >> a portion of a hearing held earlier today by the subcommittee. you can see the entire meeting later on c-span3. today, nancyher weekly briefinr
reporters as congress wrapped up work for the august recess. she cricized republicans. >> good morning. peopleyou explain to the that today congress will go into an august recess and after more than six months in this congress this republican congress, we still have no jobs bill, we have no budget bill, and we have the threat of shutting down government and not raising the withoutling, repealing the affordable care act? do-nothing congress, and now it has gone to something worse. it is an aimless congress that is falling into chaos to make matter worse. we should not leave until we address the challenges that we
face. as soon as we arrived back in september, what we will have is eight or nine legislative days, we will be faced with a deadline at the end of the fiscal year. how can we explain to the american people why we are leaving here now, not having done our work? this week, the republicans pulled the plug on the appropriations bill on the floor proposed by the committee, that was proposed by the committee. they pulled that bill. they pulled it because it is such a bad bill they probably did not want the world to see how bad it was a much in contrast to a very positive transportation bill that received bipartisan support in the committee on the senate side, and now as you see, republicans in the senate have come out to make sure that that build is not see the light of day, a transportation bill. the initiative they are talking about for the farm bill, $40
billion in cuts, that probably ensures that there will not be a farm bill, which would be most unfortunate. they pulled the interior appropriations bill. this is chaotic. this is not a professional approach to getting the job done, to getting solutions, and resolving issues for the american people. what does it mean to you if we do not honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america? three things it could mean to you are that your 401(k), retirement account, will be very adversely affected. just the threat, the discussion debtt raising the limit had the impact of lowering ago.redit rating two years it means homeowners will be affected, their interest rate will be did, and it means credit card debt will be affected as well.
directly relates to the financial well-being of the american people, and why? because of an aim less make matters worse congress cannot get its act together. the president has offered a compromise. he has offered to lower a corporate rate in return to get investments in job creation in our country, which in turn will inject demand into the economy and help reduce the deficit. with the president going at far, to meet republicans) are the's, they have rejected that. in ado not want to work bipartisan way. our new members cannot .nderstand why we came here
they expected we would have a budget bill. it ise are, and unfortunate, but i wish we could stay. our members are prepared to stay and work and work. the american people are working. we should be working for them. we have spent a good deal of --e addressing members about addressing them in a way that addresses this standards of dignity in the house, but how about how this congress addresses the needs of the american people. i will be pleased to take any questions. i understand this is your last day with us. congratulations to you.
you firstcall on because you are always there. congratulations. >> thank you very much. i am wondering if you have been reason whythe embassies are going to be closed this sunday. now there is a worldwide travel alert to the our entire month of august. what is your understanding of the threat? be overlyricans concerned about security right now question mark >> --? >> the membership of the house has been briefed on the subject. my staff was at that briefing, and they briefed me as to what the basis of it is, yes, we have been briefed. now in the public domain, that the embassies will be closed, and there is a travel alert for americans traveling abroad, there is some understandings of the seriousness of the threat. we understand there will be
handleuncement on how to congressional employees. have you been briefed on that, and do you have any sense of how that might work? it has been a surgery case about how certain staff -- there has been a certain case about how staff will be handled. congress inrs of the exchanges, yes, yes, nevers of congress -- members of congress will be in the exchanges as the affordable care act. as we continue to ensure the smooth implementation of the affordable care act, we look forward to the start of the enrollment and october. it is important for us to get this information for we left for august because october one is right around the corner. , we will bendmark
holding insurance companies accountable. we will be enhancing patients' writes, putting money -- , and enhancings the health security of families. because ofng months, the law, americans will have expanded choices and more affordable care, and members of congress and their staff will be and rolled. concern about the brain drain -- >> you mean at the staff level? [laughter] >> that there would be a brain drain on the staff. can you describe what the concern was and how that would have worked had there been -- some people do not make that much money -- >> they would have health
care and now health insurance, and now they will under the affordable care act through the exchanges. situation, andhe this resolves it. >> [indiscernible] did tell me there would be a problem, and maybe it is a good opportunity for us to give tribute to the staff and all they mean to the workings of congress. intellectualendous resource. people should be better compensated financially, and happily they enjoy the psychic rewards of public service, at least for a while. the main target of that piece of the legislation was that members of congress and collateral damage was to staff. has beendoubt
removed. members of congress have always been in the exchanges, and there was a differentiation on staff. if you were leadership or personal staff, and what we are waiting to see the final language because we have not seen that, but that is what we are working on now. said thereker has will be ample time in september to deal with fiscal issues left on the plate. progress is not blowing past any deadlines by leaving today. they could quickly go on a recess every august, through labor day. what is different about this time? >> what is different about this time and two years ago, last year and your before, the republicans have not done their work leading up to the break. that is what is different about it. it is one thing to leave having a plan in place to address the problem or to have addressed it. usually what you try to do, whether studying for an exam in school or the semester is coming
to an and and you have your papers in, you get your work done in a timely fashion. if there is work they want to get done is nothing, then they are right on schedule. if they want to resolve the issue, we should be here working -- and by the way we should have been doing much more up until now, but they have rejected every overture that the president has made in a bipartisan way, to talk, to agree to their lowering the corporate rate. let me just say this -- when we are talking about the budget and economy, we are talking about confidence, and confidence is a very important value to the economy, to the american people, and that confidence is something we should be sustaining and strengthening rather than questioning and undermining. so what nine days in september?
we have beautifully and respectively so i'm a we have yom kippur and rosh hashanah, but after those holidays are finished, we have a week off because we just came in for a days. eight days. so they take another week about that, leave the 24th of september, a full week before the -- less time. i always have temporal markers, where are we? we are over six months. now it is seven months since they took control over the house once again. it is now four months since the senate has passed a budget bill. they said at the beginning of the term, they want regular order. pa budget bill and the se senate did four months ago and now they said they did not
want to go to the table. why wouldn't they want to get to the table? because they do not want the public to see the contrast in values that are in those budgets. but that it is a luxury our country cannot afford, and it takes its toll in the confidence that people have. so, if they think nine days in september is enough time to resolve all differences which they cannot even result a difference to bring in an appropriations bill to the floor, i think they are very wrong. s,think they are aimles chaotic, and they are making matters worse for the american people when we should be resolving this and coming to terms. that is what we were sent here common ground, but don't say nothing is our agenda. does nothing work for you, the american people? never is our timetable. never work for you, but if you
are looking for work or if you have any economic security, nothing and never do not work for you, and it does not work for democrats in congress. yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] you have also said that if immigration reform does not happen by the end of this year it will be tough to do in an election year. are you concerned at all that time is running out, considering how much effort will be dedicated by immigration do pass out of the house this year? >> i will answer that if you tell us about your glasses. [laughter] >> they are google glasses. >> and what are we doing with this right now? filming? it is being filled by other cameras right now. you areng your mom what going to eat for lunch, as long as you look down at your lunch? -- what is thing
different about the budget in the immigration is the budget -- onfiscal year ends september 30. the calendar year relates more to the immigration bill. i feel very confident that because public sentiment being what it is about rare opportunity to to ,et things done on immigration that we will find a bipartisan that theass a bill president will sign, that will be a comprehensive immigration reform, a path to legalization, and citizenship. secure our borders, protect our workers, have a path to legalization, have initiatives ingenuityte american h- entrepreneurship with the
1b visas and arrests, so it is comprehensive. it contains a great deal, badges, they are being the law enforcement people, and the bibles, the , working on this i will not say we are optimistic, but it is a positive path to getting something done there. i am sorry we have not seen more acceptance of what the bipartisan group in the house has put together, but that is imminent. i do not know. but i do know they worked very hard over a number of years to put together a bipartisan bill and it would be great if the house could have a bill, one that is thought out again in a bipartisan way, a compromise, but that is ok.
something we cannot live with. to go forward with that. that is what we had hoped would happen and has not hoped and does not look like it will happen before we leave today. as the american people weigh maybe will bethat a picture that looks different when at the timetable and agenda comes in september. >> [indiscernible] >> we have a vote in just a minute. [indiscernible] how confident are you that we are going to have a farm bill at the end of september? not confident, unfortunately. again, your order on the budget -- we passed a budget, the senate passed a budget, and we can go to conference. the senate passed a budget and
we did not happen. the committee that works in a bipartisan way to produce a farm bill had some very serious cuts, but enough democrats voted for it to make it bipartisan to breed to the fork in a bipartisan way. with the intimidation -- anticipation that the speaker would respect the work of the committee. and you see what has happened since then. either note foods stamps -- now the rumor is they will cut $40 billion from food stamps. our ranking member, mr. peterson, who always works in a bipartisan way, says that means we will probably not have a farm bill if they stick to that. let's just go to the table. they passed their farm bill. now to go back -- and even with that though, as herbal as it was, at the least it is a path to a conference table. to put their members on record
for supporting $40 billion worth of cuts makes a path back to a farm bill harder. >> [indiscernible] what comesn is still back -- strongill have to have a bipartisan vote, and can they produce any votes on their side that does not cut -- think about the children of america, and in everything we do, on the budget, on the farm bill, how many millions of children are affected by having the food stamps cut and nutrition meals on, seniors' wheels, families affected very drastically on this, and there will be cuts in the nutrition program. there are some already in the senate side. but to go to $40 billion is to valuesdo not share the of those who think america should not be a country where
one in four children in america goes to sleep hungry, and that is what their statement in. --t is in further notice furtherance of that serious problem. have a good august. i suppose since we are gone, you will be gone. never know when we might come back. let's thank jill and her professionalism for being with us. andmake us feel that way, so thank you, and good luck to you in what you do, what you are doing next. thank you all. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] leader policy warning the state department warned they are closing their embassies on sunday. they issued a warning today her information suggests that al qaeda and
affiliated organizations continued to plan terrorist attacks and that they may focus efforts to conduct attacks in the time between now and the end of august. they went on to say that terrorists a elect to use a variety of means and weapons and a target both official and private u.s. interests. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation's. we will bring you a hearing on the safety of u.s. embassies onight at 8:00 p.m. eastern c-span two. the u.s. house has wrapped up its work for the august recess. recess.ve-week summer they approved some measures that would require approval of any regulation having more than 100 billion dollars in economic impact. they also voted to block the internal revenue service from implementing any part of the healthcare law. they will return on september 9, and we will have live coverage here on c-span.
off the floor, the house oversight committee had a hearing on tax fraud. the chairman switched gears, is focusing his questions on the irs targeting of political groups. here's a look at the reaction wum acting irs commissioner rfel. >> i have frustrations i'm bringing to you today. as you know, a number of months ago, the president dated clear that the behavior that occurred in an isolated basis in cincinnati was unacceptable, and he charged we would get to the bottom of it. we have gotten to the fact that it is not isolated to cincinnati as was said. it is not isolated washington. if it goes to your chief consul's office. if we do the discovery, that is where the rub is. you promised full cooperation,
and yet the office of the chief counsel has 70 attorneys, and they are delivering for documents and a per attorney to us, and they look like this -- and it says 6103. if a lawyer is working on documents, four pages a day, per lawyer, are you going to tell me that this is in fact minimal reduction as required by law? >> there is a couple of statements i would like to make. >> no, i would just like your answers please. >> the lawyers take seriously their legal responsibilities to redact information under the law, to reject information specific to an individual taxpayer, and all such information, bottom line, mr. chairman, also is in formation, whether redacted or under directed, is delivered to this congress. >> you delivered less than one
percent -- one numeral percent come a excuse me for standing, than1%'d delivered less of documents to the ways and means committee. >> i disagree with that conclusion. if i am allowed to explain, i is my pere -->> here question to you. terms.uced 63 search you added some search terms. i am not disagreeing with your adding progressive and looking for progressive. that is fine. i want more, not less. you came up with this. it added up to a total of 80 terms, and your office reduce that down to a dozen. they're not searching on the terms we asked for. our request is for all information related to this.
when you eliminate search terms unilaterally, you're obstructing us a limiting the scope of discovery. you understand that? i understand, but disagree with the premise of your question. >> did your people limit the search terms below those that were delivered in response letter today? >> we are prayer ties inc. documents to get more quickly. the amount of documents that we have produced has increased the nap -- hermetically. we are making modifications -- >> that is not your call, mr. rfel. i understand why you have removed taxpayers pacific, but this is being delivered without headers. if the names were there, i would still know what those numbers are. somebody delivery lead rooted out information or created it
digital in which they stripped out the meaningful data so you know actually what these columns are. even mr. connelly would say this to not look like a spreadsheet because spreadsheets say on top of it. additionally, we asked you for information. we set the priority if you're going to slow-roll us. you are slow rolling us. >> that is not true. >> you frustrated this committee. you promised to do things and you're not. the office of chief counsel have made the decisions to limit search terms. is that correct, or did you? >> i am working with the office. we are not limiting the terms and a limited way. we are prior days -- we are prioritizing. may i make a point? >> i will gladly give that consent provided the democratic side of the aisle the allowed to respond, given the fact that we
are now off-topic with respect to this hearing. i respect the wishes and prerogative of the chairman to use this opportunity to query mr. warfel on a different matter, and i respect that, but i would like an equal opportunity to respond. the fulld grant committee chair that time, and we will grant additional time to the minority. x i thank the chair for his graciousness. >> let's go through the numbers. >> i was about to -- >> i am only granted additional time. the democrats seem to be carrying your water. >> these are important facts for me to get out. are checking them. >> i am not. that is not true. werfel, apparently were put into run cover until somebody new would come in. it is now my time and i am going to explain to you what this
committee has found. two months you have delivered 25 -- 12,100, and this is over 2500 of them. they are completely useless. your interpretation of 6103 is so broad you are delivering no meaningful information. we have prioritized the number of discovery. tos lerner, who attempted take the fifth, we have asked for all of her correspondence. forthcoming.en correspondence from the white house had darn well that are not included 6103. this redaction is not appropriate. we are not covered by the privacy act. even if it includes names of individuals, even if it included that, frankly it would not be 6103.
it would be communications with the outside. were people have unilaterally chosen to reject private information. you do not have the right to have private communications on government time on government equipment if lois lerner or other had private communications, they are not subject to 6103, because we expect them to be referred for criminal prosecution. you cannot have private conversations and release 6103. that would be wrong. as we go through this discovery and find far axis redacting, no questions resolved, limiting search terms, you may call it prioritizing, but you're not doing it as we need them. it is my expectation we should have received communications from the white house. between anyone who is conducting non- 6103 business, we should have already received lois entire packet.
these are the american people's expectations. your speed of delivery is such that you will be long gone, the president will be long gone, lois lerner will have retired before we would receive a sufficient amount of information to be meaningful. you are leaving me no choice. i have asked you for information. you're not forthcoming. your chief counsel's office appears to be clearly compromised. the lawyers there are included in this investigation. the communications to and from those lawyers clearly mean the office of chief counsel, a political appointed office, has been compromised. it leaves me no choice, i will be preparing and sending a subpoena for these documents to the secretary of the treasury who will be remaining on, and our expectation is that the treasury department to take over the delivery of documents in a timely fashion, you such attorneys as they see fit that
they believe are not compromised, and i would ask you to immediately instruct the chief counsel that the chief counsel's office may not any longer be part of the decision- making, only attorneys who are not part of our investigation. quite frankly, i deeply disappointed. it is my expectation with our past relationship and your past work that you would come and not just one thing to be a caretaker, but actually get to the bottom of this. but as cincinnati turned washington, washington turned to political appointee offices, and the president began calling this candle phony and secretary lew began calling this scandal phony. what i do not understand is how you can think the people would accept this as funny. this is a real investigation. we need real discovery. if these documents need to be redacted, you have no reason to deliver them. if you can only deliver me completely blank pages, deliver
them to the other committee. but i will tell you one thing, as these pages, which are almost impossible to figure out are they came from him a are gone through by the ways and means committee, you better hope you better really hope that we do not find something there that clearly should not have been redacted. we expect we will. moreover, i'm sad to see you go, because i thought you could do something. i am sad to have to issue a subpoena, because that is not what i thought we were going to have. we did not enter this investigation aching this was some grand conspiracy. we thought this was going to be something fundamentally wrong. my democratic friends are convinced aggressive were targeted, even though your own inspector general said he found no evidence of it. he found evidence of other groups generally called tea party groups having been targeted. we do not want to find only one side. we want to find anyone that is targeted, and we want to find
people responsible. today lois lerner is being given full pay and not held accountable. our job is to find out everybody that you be held accountable and make sure the american people and trust us this will not happen again because i believe if we are thwarted in this investigation, this will become a pattern of behavior, whether by the chief executive of the united states or simply a individuals who have power within your overseas, such as the irs, epa, osha, and the like. aree notion that we impeding or asserting is false. the opposite is true. we are involved in a thorough, comprehensive effort to fully cooperate with all the congressional committees that are asking questions, asking for witnesses, asking for documents, and there is substantial evidence that demonstrate our full cooperation. herein mind i have been for nine weeks, and this process moving forward, and we are getting better at reducing this
discovery on a day-to-day aces. -- more than 100 people working on this. this includes 70 attorneys working to review documents. we are producing documents on a rolling aces. 16,000mmittee has over pages of documents that have been delivered. but the congress as a whole as of today, there will be 70,000 pages of documents delivered. what is important about redaction process, and what is very important to make sure that the public and numeric and people understand is that all of these documents are being produced to congress. they operate within legal constraints in terms of what we can deliver to whom and to win. watch that hearing tonight in prime time at 8:00 p.m. eastern. report by the inspector general found that the u.s. park police and its commanders who
had a lackadaisical attitude toward the management of its firearms program. and teresarvis chambers were among the witnesses at this hearing. it is an hour and 40 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. i would like to begin by stating the oversight of government reform mission statement. we exist --americans have the right to know that money is well spent. in the committee is to protect these rights. our responsibility is to hold government accountable because taxpayers have a right to know what they get. we will work tirelessly with watchdogs to deliver the facts the american people and bring reform to the federal
bureaucracy. this is the mission of the oversight and government reform committee. we appreciate you being here in an effort with the natural resources committee to conduct an important oversight hearing today entitled missing weapons at the national park service. mr.uld also like to welcome grijalva. colleagues,s, my also involved in these committees will be joining us shortly. i am pleased to hold the hearing today with my friend and the gentleman from utah, representative bishop, the chairman of the house committee on public lands. and i look forward to working with him on an ongoing basis. the proceedings result from a need to address questions and concerns raised in a junarssuedy the u.s. department of
interior's office of inspector general. madee report the oig serious charges, including finding insufficient accuracy the u.s.versight of park police and firearms program. during the course of the investigation, oig found evidence of conditions that would allow for theft and misuse of firearms and the ability to conceal the fact if weapons were missing. despite requirements to maintain an accurate farms inventory, oig found u.s. park police found records were inaccurate and failed to account for hundreds of firearms. if these findings are accurate, the lack of accountability is completely unacceptable. given that clearing findings about the park police lack of accountability for their program, i am interested to learn whether the ammunition used by the u.s. park police is probably -- properly accounted for. hearings previously an
on april 25 this year. we found then that the government in some cases has not procured ammunition efficiently or effectively. based on the seriousness of the charges in the report, the findings weren't further examination -- warrant further examination. examples where u.s. park police weapons were stolen or misused. how did the oig arrive at the hundreds of weapons used number? port datae errors or entry the main cause of the unaccounted firearms? today's hearing provides an opportunity to discuss the findings by the oig and to assess the extent of accountability issues within the united states park police. it is important to examine what tootence or kermit -- examine the weapons procurement
process. it has discovered for 200 extra onlyns with the force of 640 officers. these extra weapons consisted of 477 literary style weapons. according to the oig, we also discovered a number of weapons that fulfilled no operational need. it is my understanding the wereermined number awaiting distraction. we need to discuss that. i'm concerned about the finding regarding senior management supervision of the program, specifically that staff at all levels from the far programs managers had no idea how many weapons they maintained dude to their incomplete inventory controls. that firearmsed managers accept verbal assurances that firearms inventories were completed corrector rather than taking personal responsibility.
unverified assurances about the accuracies of the inventory is simply not tolerable. the reported lack of accountability over the weapons programs has been commended as a long-standing issue. i believe starting in 2003. certainly in 2008 and 2009, oig found a lack of oversight in the accountability for ram, but the parliaments persist. for the program, but the problems persist. this continues to be an ongoing problem. unfortunately, after the reports issued in 2008 and 2009, it does not appear on the surface that these problems were resolved, and we are talking about firearms. it is important and that is why we are here again today. i want to take a moment emphasized that the hard work and dedication of the park police officers is greatly appreciated. we have great men and women who dedicate their lives, put
themselves on the line, in support of a very patriotic duty in serving their nation, and protecting some of our nation's greatest assets. we need to ensure our law enforcement officers are properly trained and equipped to effectively do their jobs. said, the vandalism that recently occurred at the lincoln memorial, national cathedral, and the sicilian raise concerns 'dollars areayers being used effectively. i find it hard to believe that given the prominence of the lincoln memorial that we do not ,ave some of the 24/7 watching gardening, taking care of the lincoln memorial, that somebody could do that and then simply be able to walk away. i am particularly interested to learn what the lease is doing to ensure the that our national monuments will not be defaced or become prime targets of terrorism. i look forward to hearing from all witnesses today, and we will
focus on the need for proper inventory procedures, oversight of management, and we will be touching on the recent defacing of some of our nations best assets. the committee seeks to ensure that the u.s. park lease addresses the oig recommendations outlined in the june 27 report. i think -- i thank you for being here, and i appreciate the work that i do with the ranking member and now recognize him. >> thank you. in the interest of time, i ask consent that my opening remarks be placed in the record. >> without objection, absolutely. we appreciate that. we appreciate your being here today, mr. grijalva. he is the rankingembersubcommitl
resources committee. we appreciate you being here today. we now recognize you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i think the problems identified seriousig require consideration. we should try to understand the allegations in the report and not overstate or politicize them. i will like to acknowledge the policeal order of park has serious concerns with another lousy used by the inspector general and the allegations made in the report. the title of this report, missing weapons at the national park service, there's no reason to believe that weapons are missing or that weapons were in the hands of unauthorized personnel. able to account for all weapons with the exception of a few weapons assigned officers who are overseas. the department has determined 98% of its weapons were already in the official system. there is a whole litany of
issues, but following the trends almost, if ierney, may, mr. chairman, if there is no objection, enter the letter from the united states park as partraternal order of record for this area. >> without objection. >> the rest of my statement, well-thought-out, will be submitted as a part of the record. but all members will have seven days to summit opening statements for the record. we will now recognize our first panel. urston. chambers is the chief of the united states park police.
we appreciate all you being here. pursuant to rules, all witnesses will be sworn before they testify. if you will please stand and raise your right hand. swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth? thank you. you may be seated. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. we appreciate you limit your testimony to five minutes. my understanding we have a consolidated opening statement, which we greatly appreciate. we will now recognize mr. knox first. chairman, members of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunities to testify today about a recent office of inspector general report on
accountability and accuracy of united states park police farmer's inventory. in short, we found ample evidence that the united states managementfirearms requires immediate attention to address the multitude of problems we found. these range from errors in record-keeping to glaring malfeasance by officers. we initiated a review after receiving a complaint. we set out to determine if the united states park police to account for all military style weapons in its inventory. either the united states park police had failed to perform inventories due to missing weapons, and whether officers may have used weapons for their personal use. our records to definitively address the politicians were hindered by the inability of the robbery and firearms custodians to revive their arrival a slight inventory and accounting of firearms. the conditions of the united states park police inventory
were such that would allow for theft and misuse of firearms and the ability to conceal any missing weapons. having found the firearms inventory program in disarray, we discontinued efforts to prove the complaint allegations and changed our approach to focus on the management of united states park police firearms inventory program. following a consistent history of inaction and indifference on the part of the police leadership and management on all levels, we again found the basic tenets of property management and oversight were missing in the most fundamental forms. commanders come up to and including the chief of police, have a lackadaisical attitude toward firearms management. we found evidence that indicates this is the product of years of inattention to detail and in its most basic form. in 2008 and 2009, the office of inspector general and that the reviews that include aspects of the united states park police
operations including firearms inventory controls. enter 2008 report, we had a recognition regarding property management. controlswe focused on for all law enforcement programs at the department of the interior, which included the united states park police. at that time we found and reported on strikingly similar conditions as we note in our current report. firearms custodians were unaware of the guns in their inventory or of the origins of these guns. guns physically present were not listed on the inventory. in the end, we have little confidence that the united states park police has the managerial commitments to implement a professionally as possible program without direct and frequent oversight from the national park service, the office of law enforcement and security, and the office of inspector general. among the recommendations we make in the report is a recommendation to initiate quarterly firearms inventory and provide the office of inspector
general with results. we intend to conduct a series of reviews and inspections to ensure the united states park police has implemented our recommendations and that they maintain the level of accountability expected for a law enforcement entity of the size of the united states park police. chairman, this concludes my testimony. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i understand we have a consolidated opening statement. we now recognize you for five minutes. affitz,rman che thank you for the invitation to discuss the findings of the department of inspector general's firearms accountability within the united states park police. why name is charge arbors -- my name is john jarvis. the u.s. park police is the
uniformed patrol law enforcement agency. we provide law enforcement services to areas within the national park service, or dominantly in washington, d.c., new york, and sever cisco. members are professional police officers and dedicated servers that help us protect millions of visitors each year to protect some of our most viable washingtonons, the monument, the golden gate bridge. on june 27, inspector general issued its review of park police weapons accountability. the review raise serious significant concerns regarding park police firearms management. the accountability of weapons used by our law enforcement personnel is of critical importance, and we take the issues raised seriously. numberreport reported a of important regulations to address those issues. efforts.iate the ig's
we are committed to implementing recommendations that will improve accountability. in the last 30 days since the issuance of the report, if taken actions to address the ig's ruminations. the first priority was to conduct a thorough inventory of all government owned firearms in part please custody, in accordance regulation three. to conduct this invitation we created a team of senior officials from the national park departmentd the to contact all officers within the park police and personally inspect every park police firearm, whether issued to an officer or security. the team visited facilities in new york, washington, d.c., and sever cisco. with the exception of three officers, the team has met with each police officer. the team has in short each
inspected firearm has been entered into an track in the department cost new property accountability system. approximately 98% of the physical firearms were previously entered into the system. we are continuing our efforts to complete the inventory, including reconciliation of existing records. the team is reviewing the approach to administrative oversight training and coordination. we are committed to ensuring numbers maintain a high standard of accountability with its firearms inventory. with the guard to other recommendations, we have either addressed or are in the process of addressing each one of them. we are reviewing all park police guidance to conform -- confirmed that it complies with park service and departmental regulations policies and procedures. the park police has seized using
informal property accountability systems, and we of transition all of our arms to our new property accountability systems. the park police now has a schedule to ensure quarterly inventories of all firearms. and achieve a of park police will approve all firearms purchases, and that is already in place. in addition, the national park service has asked the part please to detail all work that has been done to date on all of the ig regulations and the actions planned to address the ones that have not been completed. office of law's enforcement and security, responsible for policy development, and support of the department's programs, will work with the national park service to provide additional oversight. the office periodically audits the euros for compliance with law enforcement policies. the office is conducting a ongram compliance assessment bureau firm programs. we want to ensure the committees
and the department, nps, the part please take seriously this to work together to monitor compliance with the direction on this matter. thank you for your attention to this issue. we will be happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you, we appreciate that. and we schedule a hearing at 9:00, they're in safe territory until 10:00 30 or so. day, is an exceptional members are devised there is 13 minutes until a vote on the floor. given that prior to, this committee will stand in recess until the conclusion of the have and as soon as we members back in appropriate numbers, we will resume this hearing. we are guessing that is an hour sooneralf, certainly not than 10:30.
do any of you take issue with any of the findings in that report? >> i will start. we appreciate the ig's report and take all 10 recommendations that are spot on and taking every one of them seriously. >> do you take any issue with any of the findings? i appreciate the implementation of recommendations. any of their findings, do you take issue with them? >> their findings indicated a snapshot, a photograph, of the conditions of inventory of weapons at the park police facilities at that moment. i consider them accurate. they do not indicate the real behind the scenes. they backed out and said go to an inventory, and that is what we are doing. in 2008,ook a snapshot in 2009. were those acrid back then
question mark -- were those acrid back then? >> i am not familiar with those reports because i was not in this role at that i'm -- at this time. >> that is one of the concerns. when a snapshot is taken, the report gets put on a shelf. concerned with the repetitive nature of these challenges. chief chambers, according to the 44, and inventory is supposed to be taken twice a year. does that happen? >> yes, sir, it does. ofdid you sign this memo august 31 saying i certify that all weapons inventories for which i'm responsible have been completed and all weapons records have been reconciled? >> i did, sir. >> what did you base that on? >> a number of folks in the
chamber of command. >> merely conversations? did you ever look at the physical material? >> i reviewed the records, but do not physically touch any of the weapons, but i asked probing questions. i asked how i compare to -- previousature is inventories, and asked if it could become for -- >> with whom did you have that conversation? >> perhaps the captain in training at that time. >> why the descriptions he on what mr. knox was able to find? defective betweenwo commute is -- computer systems. we were left to use excel spreadsheets, which were better than nothing, but not able to quickly ascertain where items were or get a quick count on how many of anything there was. that has changed since then, but
in that snapshot of time, we were limited in our capability to quickly review -- thorsen, why was this the case? why the discrepancy between the two? i gave you the opportunity to anywhether there were discrepancies in the findings. you did not say a word. >> i have no issue with the department and no issue with the findings in a report -- >> but they are in dispute. somebody is wrong. you have chief chambers saying that the weapons inventories for which i am responsible have been completed, and all weapons records have been reconciled, and the inspector general saying that is not the case. i'm trying to figure out from three of you -- why why is that?
how does the chief of the part police say they are reconciled in the inspector general says they are not even close? i gave each of the three of you an opportunity to question or dispute any of the claims or findings from the inspector general. you did not say anything. shoes -- whatn my is the right answer here? >> i'm not ridiculously familiar chiefhe memo and what the did. >> why not? what is your relationship with the chief? what responsibility or oversight -- >> the office of law enforcement and security, which was -- departmentme, has level policy, coordinate with the bureau, and provides oversight. >> do you feel a responsibility for what happens or does not happen? the accountability for
firearms starts with the officer, the supervisor, the chief, the director of the park , whom she reports to directly, and my office has a responsibility periodically to go in and ensure that all departments follow departmental policy. >> we have a dispute here. explain to me how we can have two totally different -- who messed up here? is it chief chambers? is it the inspector general? >> the way i see it, mr. chairman, is that we have an inventory management issue, and that is exactly what the ig found. they came in. they could not reconcile the weapons that they saw in u.s. park police possession against what should be a computerized database. chief, were you or were you
theable to reconcile weapons inventory? >> at the time that the ig was there, we were not in a position to say with certainty, but we can say now that it has been reconciled. >> when were you there? when were you doing this inspection? >> we conducted our inspection from february 11 to february 13 -- >> of which year? >> of 2013. and you are saying that they were reconciled on august 30 1, 2012, and that within six months, it was in disarray? is that what you are saying? >> i'm saying that we could not prove or disprove -- excuse me, my allergies are acting up -- we could not prove or disprove whether the records were accurate. at that point in time, we had several excel spreadsheets to try to bring this constellation -- the weapons were there, but there was no way to reconcile. we can do so now.
>> i have more questions about this, as do other members. we are way over time. i recognize the general man from minutes, plusve another minute or so if he so chooses. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with kind of a basic question. given the report and the has the parkns, police accountant for all these weapons? do you believe that all the weapons have been accounted for? the same question for director jarvis and for the chief and for mr. knox, if you would not mind starting with thorsen. weapons havee all been accounted for? >> at this point in time, our office in conjunction with the park service have conducted a physical inventory of the park police weapons, and at this point in time, 98% of them, we we haveountable --
accounted for. there are a few we have not put eyes on. that is not complete. there's three outstanding at this point in time. other than that, yes. >> i would agree with that. we are not satisfied until we put our physical hands on every weapon that is in the inventory, and we are still missing three that are assigned to individual officers that are not on duty at the moment but will be very soon. >> likewise, sir, those final three that we have to touch, and as a safeguard, we have another step to do. we are going to look back at acquisition and property records to make certain that things we have purchased or acquired over the last five to 10 years are actually in that new computerized database. i'm confident that they are, but i want that additional assurance. >> thank you. >> congressman, the ita positito wons ther they have accountabity of all the weapons possessed by the u.s.
park police or not. -- whenust a follow-up the inspection was going on, there was a spot analysis that you talk about in the report, so there was no follow-up investigation on the part of your office to go deeper into that issue? >> no, sir. as we began our assessment, we realized that the condition of accountability was in disarray. there were not good, clear records of what weapons should be available, what records should be on -- what weapons should be on their accountable take a, so we do not position on accountability today because although we are confident national park service is doing all they can to inventory the weapons that are currently present within the control of the u.s. park holies,
there's still another step, as the chief points out, to take, which is to go back in time and identify the weapons that have been acquired either through transfer or purchase or other means and ensure that all of those weapons are accounted for as well. question go to another having to do with the mission of the park police to provide quality law enforcement to safeguard lives, to protect our national treasures and symbols of democracy and preserve natural and cultural resources entrusted to the american people and to the parks service and the park police -- let me begin with you again, ms. thorsen. do you believe the mission of the park has been compromised as a result of the report -- as a result of the issues described in the report? >> no, i don't, sir. >> if you do not mind, director jarvis, i would like to get this.
>> no, sir, i do not believe there has been any compromise to our responsibility's. >> chief? >> our mission has not been compromised. >> i go back to you, mr. knox. do you feel that essential mission, as a consequence of your recommendations and snapshot, has been calm for my? is not related to the accountability of weapons alone. we did not look at the impact that had on the operation of the u.s. park police. accountabilitye of weapons is a part of their duty and operations and that those were severely lacking. >> in the limited time, if i may, mr. knox, the only person ,"o uses words like "inaction "indifferent," "lackadaisical attitude," to describe the way -- park police handled this
you are the person who uses words like that to describe the way park police handled this. chief chambers, do you believe the inspector general was justified in saying that park police senior management has a lackadaisical attitude towards weapons management and accountability? i ask that question because going back to the question i just asked, it is about the integrity of that function -- the police function -- and the confidence that the public has. those words are pretty strong words, and your justification for using them is my question. >> congressman, we looked at numerous factors when we came to deliberately choose those words. i would begin with the series of incidents where the chief of the u.s. park police had been advised of the serious conditions regarding weapons accountability of u.s. park police. thee was a memo offered by
force of arms custodian to the chief of police in 2011 that actually demonstrated an inventory variance of 120 weapons that was brought to her attention. again in that year, the office of her -- office of professional issued aility memorandum based on their weapons accountability assessment, and they indicated a critical failure in the weapons theuntability posture of park police. later, a memo -- i'm sorry, a meeting regarding the force firearms custodian was held where discussions about the content of that memo occurred. later, a subsequent meeting with withhief chapman was held regard to those discussions. even as we concluded our fieldwork on february 13, 2013, i personallyriefedthe u.s. park police advising her on findings
and urging her to take immediate steps to begin an inventory and get a handle on what the actual weapons count for the u.s. park police weapons inventory was, and we found no meaningful efforts taken until after the publishing of our report. in the overage of time, could the chief respond? thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity. while i certainly would have chosen different words and not characterized this with words be so emotionally driven, i do appreciate the feedback, nonetheless. mentionedse mr. knox several memos, i will touch on them. at each step along the way, extreme action was taken. dialogue, trips to the field offices by our force firearms custodian, but i would like to put on the record that the audits memo that talked about the critical failure was a new memo to me.
i had never heard of it. and the only record that the inspector general's office could produce was one that was still in draft mode. it still had the track changes. it was not signed on letterhead. it had no recommendation. that memo never made it to my office. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the extra time. >> i will give you an opportunity to respond to that. >> i cannot say for sure whether the chief of police received the memo from the force firearms custodian, but i would point out the multiple events that occurred between 2011 and 2013, and it is the position of the office of inspector general that at least some of those should have alerted the senior leadership, including the chief of police, of the serious conditions of loss of weapons accountability of u.s. park lease. >> thank you. i want to recognize chairman bishop from utah for five minutes. >> thank you for the opportunity to be part of this hearing.
in some specs, i feel like -- in some respects, i feel like i do not really know who the good guys are out there. in fact, i feel like there is -- failure at every level that has gone on here. mr. chambers, i'm going to follow-up on that in a minute, but i want want to go to mr. jarvis first. the ig report focuses exclusively on failures within the park police, for which you have ultimate jurisdiction. is there something about the relationship or the autonomy of the park lease that allows them departmentide of policies on firearms -- allows them to fall outside of department policies on firearms? >> no, mr. chairman. i believe all our departmental and national service policies apply directly to u.s. park police. >> we also have armed law enforcement in the rest of the nation.
how do you compare the accountability in place for those weapons as opposed to what we found here in the park police ? >> with all our managers, we would have responsibility for controlled park property, such as weapons. we have a policy of inventory. i have a policy of trust but verify, which means i expect them to do their audits and on theirliberately inventory as well as any missing weapons. >> i appreciate the concept of verify. that is extremely important, but have you investigated -- what have you done to investigate the firearmsf park-wide -- park-service-wide, not just with park police? >> we have periodic audits where we do send in our agents to do spot audits on the weapons inventory. when i was superintendent, we
would have independent audits done specifically -- i can remember one specific case where we did find a missing weapon that was not reported, and i removed that employee's law- enforcement commission immediately immediately and permit. so we do have that kind of oversight and auditing going on throughout the service. >> so you are confident that this problem only exists within the park police? it is not system-wide? >> it is not system-wide. >> can i ask you why you were not aware of what was happening with the park police? >> i was only made aware of this when i was briefed by the ig. that was the first time i was made aware. >> we will get into that in detail, but i have one other issue -- 2010, guidance was sent to the field that the springfield armory site would no longer accept firearms for destruction, so i assume that these historic arms are just hitting somewhere under your jurisdiction. do you have any responsibility to bear for these unused weapons piling up?
>> it took us three years to get a new contract for weapons disposal, so the springfield armory shut down on their weapons disposal responsibilities. it took us three years to get a new contract. there are approximately 500 weapons in the inventory of u.s. park police that are due for disposal and destruction. >> is that an accurate number? >> yes, sir, it is. >> are there any of these of historic value? >> i do not know, sir. i could find out for you. >> really? do you have a policy for allowing historically valuable weapons to be saved, something other than destroyed, mr. jarvis? >> absolutely. at springfield armory, specifically, which is the storage repository for historic weapons -- >> wait, you mean they are taking them now? >> i do not know the answer to that question, but let me say before we do complete destruction on the weapons that have been accumulated, we will see if there are any historical
weapons that are valuable for display or museum storage. >> do we know how many are? >> i do not know that. >> to you know? >> i do not know, sir. lex should you not? >> i do not have that information at my disposal here today. >> i'm over by 45 seconds here. i definitely have second-round questions for the rest of you. >> thank you. i will now recognize the gentlewoman from washington, d.c., for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to say i have some , butions about the report i do want to take this opportunity to thank the park police. we have, as the saying goes, 50 levels of police force in the district. wide -- the only city- indeed, it is a region-wide
police force. it is often underappreciated. 9/11, policeck in were quickly reinforced with new police, and it took some time to get to the capitol police, which has much larger territory throughout the district of .olumbia and the entire region so i watch capitol police very closely. except for the metropolitan police department, they are the only police department that can go anywhere. unless they have side memoranda of understanding, pursuant to a bill i got passed about a decade ago, they cannot leave the premises. about "ask the boston," we are talking about all the parades and the people who can go and protect people in thwhow it comes to federal poli, we are talking about only the park police.
i want to thank the park police for the quick capture of the person who was -- who may have been -- is alleged to have been defacing monuments. -- i also wantou to thank you for somehow finding sure that they park police were not on furloughs. i think that would be particularly absurd. when we have had furloughs in the federal government, we have always exempted law enforcement officers, and we were putting the entire city at risk with all of the officials and all of the ceremonies, and you found the funds. are you able to fill vacancies in the park police, chief chambers? >> we are not currently hiring, ma'am. >> so if someone were to do that
because of the sequester or the cuts, those positions would not be filled? >> at this moment, we do not have a schedule. we will be looking closely at the fiscal year 2014 budget. know whether you were able to keep a voice in place during this time. if i could ask mr. knox, believe me,- because i represent the district of columbia, i was pleased that apparently no weapons were .tolen weapons were not found to be taken home for personal use. no weapons were ever seized in a .rime could this have happened without some kind of monitoring? those would have been the worst, it seems to me, of the results, .nd yet, none of that occurred
why not? >> congresswoman, our assessment of weapons the sponsored ability did not find instances of weapons being stolen. we found instances of weapons not being accounted for properly, either in that we found weapons on hand which were not indicated in the property record, or week on property -- or we found property records for weapons which were not present. there you sure that all weapons were accounted for? are their recommendations from the ig on how to do this without taking time and effort? and personnel, especially now when that personnel would not be available. of federalxamples
police or other police of ways to do this that you can recommend to the bar police so this would not take a paperwork -- take up paperwork or exercise ? we have not yet found stolen weapons, people taking weapons home when they should not be or ending up in a crime. so for somebody to have a streamlined way to do this that you could recommend to the bar police? >> we made 10 recommendations of this assessment, which we feel if complied with will enhance reference response ability posture a great deal. -- if complied with will enhance weapons sponsored ability posture a great deal. >> i now recognize the gentleman minutes.igan for five
>> thank you, mr. chairman. based on the ig report, the lack of accountability here is very disturbing. the governmentow holds civilians accountable for the firearms they own as private citizens through registration and licensing procedures, but here, we have a government firearm -- government firearms paid for by taxpayers left in with a total lack of accountability. the ig discovered hundreds of handguns, rifles, and shotguns, not listed on official part police inventory records -- official park police inventory records. periodic inventory records were not maintained. is there any legitimate excuse for this lack of accountability? should there be more frequent audits and inventories? in the army, we are required to hold periodic weapons
inventories. each soldier was held accountable for the weapon that they were assigned. like most all instances in the military, the most senior person is responsible to ensure that his subordinates do what they are supposed to do. ms. chambers, as the chief of park police, who is ultimately responsible for firearms inventory? >> it is me, sir. >> the ig indicated that a survey shall be conducted lost or an item is stolen. i imagine that in the case of firearms, which are sensitive government property, like in the military -- and this is even more important. the ig report also stated that when asked about the survey, you were not aware of what it was and whether it was required to be conducted for a missing button. can you explain why this was not clear to you? >> yes, sir, i have never personally heard the term. that did not mean my team had not. re-ave three issued --
issued the memo. that wasturn -- term foreign to me. >> are you aware of any action the park police has taken as a result of your finding? >> no, sir, i'm not. >> mr. jarvis, who should be held accountable for these shortcomings? what type of disciplinary action should be taken? >> we are still in the investigative phase on this. the first step was recommendation three, which was a full physical inventory. as i indicated in my earlier testimony, we are almost done with that. we still have three officers that we want to put our hands on their weapons and look at the serial numbers. then there is a is a cult analysis of the previous procurement. when were those brought into the park police? fromre they transferred other agencies? we want to compare that to the
inventory, and then we will see whether or not there are any truly missing or stolen. then and only then would we take a disciplinary action if we there was true mismanagement. at this point, we have an inventory management issue, not a mismanagement issue, but we have got to get that completed over the next probably 60 days or so, to get that forensics done on the procurement, and then we will understand whether or not this is just a fact that we did not have them in the inventory and could not account for them in the computer system, rather than there are actually missing weapons. >> if you cannot account for them, it sounds to me like it is mismanagement. i understand according to , this has beener ongoing for the past five to 10 years i understand that correct? yes or no? >> i was not aware of anything
prior to 2011. >> i heard testimony going back as far as 2008, 2009. ms. chambers, do you receive a bonus? >> no, sir. >> to you, mr. jarvis? >> yes, sir. >> 2008, you did not receive a bonus? >> no, sir. >> 2010? >> no, sir. >> 2011? >> no, sir. --will be gentleman yield will the gentleman yield? >> mr. jarvis, you gave a nice spin, but you did not answer his question. -- who ison was ultimately responsible? >> i am the director of the park service. i am -- >> so you are ultimately responsible? what about ms. chambers? what culpability does she have? >> she is also responsible. >> there was a 2003 report that was given. 133 guns were missing.
two ended up in a pond shop. 2008 report that showed problems. who thousand nine report that showed problems -- 2009 report that showed problems. what did you do to implement the findings of the 2009 report? >> i was unaware of the 2009 report. >> but it came on your watch? >> i was not the director until -- >> you were director after this report was taken. after you took office, which it did not, what should you have done about it? >> i should hold my line supervisors accountable -- >> just the line supervisors? you are throwing everyone in your department under the bus. how much accountability should you hold? that was his question. it has not been answered. have you taken full responsibility for it? >> i have. >> what is your action? >> the most immediate has been to elevate the position of the
-- arms manager >> what about your responsibility? >> i have a more direct line of communication -- >> you are still blaming other people. >> no, sir, it is my responsibility. >> i yield back to the gentleman from michigan. >> gentleman yield back. i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. en started touching on this, but i read in this letter that said this report further underscores the deputy -- the letter from secretary kindle, that the letter underscores the departmental inaction and indifference. basic supervisory oversight are missing in their simplest forms. police has a lackadaisical attitude towards firearms management. historical evidence indicates this indifference is a product of years of inattention to
administrative detail. that is a very disturbing letter . it becomes even more disturbing report and the 2008 the 2009 report -- both have the same language. "we found it disconcerting attitude toward firearms accountability at park police. firearmsthat custodians were unaware of the number of guns in the inventory or the origin of these guns." thatis very disturbing this has been going on for -- it says a decade. and that there was this report in 2008 and 2009. are we going to be back here five years from now and the situation is going to be the same? will each of you assure us that something is going to be done to and changethis out
these lackadaisical attitudes about this? or are you just going to go back to your offices and laugh about this? >> i will respond to that. absolutely i can assure you that we will not be back in here, other than perhaps to report on the final findings of this investigation, but i can assure we will, throughout the national park service including u.s. park police, ensure accountability throughout the organization. >> i certainly echo the director's remarks. action has been taken and will continue to be taken. it is a continual improvement process, and we will get better at it each day. >> is it accurate, the report i 640 officersere's in your department? >> yes, sir. >> i mean, that is not a gigantic yurok receipt --
bureaucracy. it looks to me like it should not be that difficult to straighten this out and change these attitudes and this indifference. so thank you very much. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. let's start a second round here. i recognize myself. chief chambers, in response to chairman bishop, you said that you were elevating this person. what does that mean? >> not the person, sir. the position. >> when you say "elevate," what does that mean? >> right now, the firearms custodians position is headed by our range master. that is not appropriate. i need a person full-time who will devote all his energy. fromutenant is taken another position. that lieutenant is being pulled out of the chain of command and going right to the deputy and chief who sits next to my office -- >> how money weapons, then, does
the u.s. park police have? what is the current inventory? >> approximately 2500, sir. >> why that number? >> a patrol officer would have three weapons each. at his side, a pistol, a patrol rifle, and a teaser -- taser. were, ig found that there in their words, "1400 extra weapons." extra weapons? >> i would have characterized it differently, but it concluded things like serialized parts. firearms that have been cannibalized so that we can keep other firearms in working condition without incurring additional cost. some of these were training weapons. some, as we have already discussed, were those that were set aside awaiting disposal. weapons is how0 many you have? >> approximately, yes sir.
>> you have 640 officers? >> you said a person would have three weapons. who has more than three weapons? a swats likely that officer may have an additional weapon depending on his assignment. >> 640 sworn officers with three weapons each. that's close to 1900. how do you account for the other 600 weapons? >> many are for training purposes. like gunsde things you point at a screen. tasters -- tasers. provide to this committee the actual inventory? >> i would be glad to. >> when will i get that? >> if i could have a week, that would be appreciated. >> one week sounds reasonable. by next friday, we look forward to seeing that inventory.
i asked if you took any issue with the findings. he found that you have 1400 extra weapons. do you take exception to that? >> i do, sir. >> why did you not say that before when i asked? >> i did not want to interrupt other speakers when they were speaking. asked you that question. how did you come up with the number 1400 extra weapons? >> during our assessment, we physically examined over 1350 or so weapons on hand. at the same time, the firearms custodians providing -- provided hand.ist of weapons on there was a disparity in those numbers. even as i listen to the chief testified today, if each officer -- three weapons, weapons, that20 extra.eave close to 600
if three weapons are issued each oficer, meaning a total 1920, and a 2500 is the total sum of weapons in possession of the park police, we should have only been able to count 600 weapons when we went through the various facilities, but in, we counted 1350. >> chief, how do you answer that ? >> many of those are patrol rifles that have not yet been issued. in the program, it takes 40 hours for an officer to get fully certified. at this moment, we do not have a range to use, so we use those as we can get it. it will take several more years until every officer is certified to carry a patrol rifle. >> do you concur with everything the chief is saying? >> i do. i want to add one other factor, though, that they are in possession of some 500 weapons that are scheduled for disposal.
>> would any of those disposals include the sale of those weapons? >> i do not believe so. >> why not? they are of value. >> i think our policies are that those weapons go to disposal. >> that is a policy we need to revisit. my time is expiring here. i now call in the gentleman from arizona. thank you, mr. chairman. jarvis, just for the sake of definition, it is my understanding that what triggered your investigation and your recommendations and findings was an anonymous tip or anonymous complaint. is that for the sake of protecting a whistleblower under statute, or is it deed anon definition would be of anonymous? >> in this instance, the complaint was received
anonymously. we have no knowledge of -- phone it in writing or a call? >> the complaint was received in writing. >> excuse me, i do not have that here with me. that particular complaint has been made available to the committee in writing? >> no, sir, i do not believe it has. >> mr. chairman, could we have that complaint in writing as part of the record? >> are you asking me for the complaint? will have to consult with the deputy inspector general on our policy. >> the committee would certainly appreciate that. not just the consultation, but rankingy with the member's request. >> i understand. thank you. me to all the witnesses. i keep asking the same questions. i'm looking for a smoking gun, and i cannot seem to find 1 -- .ardon the pun
the fraternal order of police has concerns with the methodology and the allegations made in the ig report. they believe that law enforcement best practices were not followed and that the report justly places blame on the current agency administration for the failure of previous chiefs of police and that the thert undermines credibility of this and future inspector general assessments and indeed the credibility of the force itself. chief, your reaction to that assessment? i will ask the same of you, mr. knox. >> the fraternal order of police 's communication with you was, of course, on their own collision. the fact that one agrees or disagrees with how the inspector general's report may have been conducted is not as important to me as the value i find, and i did i'm invaluable -- i did find
seealuable, and i intend to that the recommendations are fully implemented. >> i received a copy of the letter. i'm not sure what they may be referring to. i take exception to the statement about undermining the .alue of oig activity our recommendations have been received well by the national park service, and we are pleased that they intend to implement them. >> i agree. that thehat the fact reaction from the administration and the department has been to be proactive and say, "let's look at these and make ,"rrections and adjustments but we keep looking for the root cause of this, and so that's why i guess i'm assuming we are having this hearing, rather than giving it ample time for the
recommendations to be implemented, to be corrected, and then to have a hearing on the assessment toward the end of the line as opposed to making some judgments now that are probably, i think, patently unfair where the process is not done yet. but given all that, there was a transition going on from one system to another dealing with reliable weapons inventory. to you believe that transition to a new system is one of the reasons that park police could not provide the inspector of the at that moment snapshot with the records upon request? >> without understanding the process thessment oig used, they had their own methodology they follow, it appears that when they were looking for records and talking to the chief tom and they were unable to bring up records in the system, so that may have
very well played into the fact that they could not produce at the time the electronic accounting records needed for verification. >> by an act of congress and unfortunately a signature from the administration, we have guns in the parks. the public can have that access, so i would suggest that the tolic would be well served .tudy how that is going on with that, i yield back, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> i recognize chairman bishop for five minutes. >> thank you. , you are the person
who oversees the law enforcement programs in the department. what is your responsibility to ensure that department firearm policies are known and followed? office of law enforcement security in the department is part of the tiered responsibility for firearms accountability. it starts with the officer- supervisory chain. then the director of the particular bureau that the law enforcement officer resides in. >> is there a responsibility to make sure she knows what she is supposed to be doing? >> we do that through compliance evaluations periodically, yes. >> the chief claims she did not know about some of these things. is that your responsibility for making that known? office'sen your failure and her not understanding what she is supposed to be doing? >> no, i do not believe it is our office's ty is to issue department of policy, which we did after the 2000 2000 nine
report was issued. >> how do you follow up? >> we follow up with periodic compliance assessment. >> they started looking at this thing in february. you started counting in july. why was there that disparity in time? by did you wait so long to try to find out what the answers would be? we started our assessment in april, and we are still in the middle of that. >> you did not do a fine accounting, did you? of how many guns ought to be there, what is the number that should be? >> we could not do that. the records were not available. >> what has your office done to provide an accurate baseline accounting for firearms? her department, but across the department. >> with park police, we are part of the tm out doing physical inventory right now. >> are you doing a baseline?
>> we are doing physical inventory at this point. >> is somebody going to come up with how many weapons should be out there? >> that's the next phase. we talked earlier that park service in particular will be looking at purchasing records, transfer records, and comparing those to their physical inventory. >> win is that going to happen? when will that be done? have an exact date, but i'm hoping in the next couple of months or two. >> so are we. will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> recommendation number six says reduce firearms inventory to no more than the minimum necessary to equip firearms -- the minimum necessary to equip officers. that's to be done by october 2013. i worry that to you even know what the recommendations are? >> yes, i do, sir. >> yield back. >> all right. the department testimony says the office of law enforcement
and security will work within the park service to provide additional oversight. that suggest that the office has not in the past been conducting adequate oversight of firearms inventory. did you conduct any oversight in response to the allegations of the 2009 report to ensure that recommendations were implemented? did you do anything for the 2009 report? >> we issued a variety of , and then we have since also looked and compared bureau of land management, the bureau of reclamation, and the fish and wildlife office of law enforcement to ensure that they have policies in place that we in the department identified from the 2009 report. so why was he not able to find any of that stuff? >>reerent bureaus. -- the process
for the park service and the park police and that follow-up is scheduled for the next couple of months. the capacity we have in the department with seven law enforcement programs, we are going through them systematically. >> so they are different than the others, and i get that, but in 2009, it was supposed to be -- the recommendation was oles should provide policy to direct bet lost firearms must reported. that was the responsibility in 2009. why did you not do it? this is now four years later, and we find out it has not been done. why was it not done? >> we did issue policy to ensure missingpons lost, weapons were reported. to bewere required o reported. >> what good are those policies if no one knows about it and no one is following up on it?
you have no follow-up on what you said you did. this is no reason that ig's report should have come out. there was already a problem in 2003 when all of you were involved. there was a report in 2008 and another one in 2009 that told you to do this. you say you issued policies, but no one knows about them and no one followed up on them. why not? >> the bureaus do know about the policies we issue. we issue them to all seven law enforcement programs. we also have ongoing conversations with the bureau, the bureau of law enforcement programs in fact while we are developing those policies. so they are aware of those policies. >> why were these things missing? why would the ig report find out so many problems that they labeled this as a lackadaisical attitude and a culture that takes place? why was this not solved in 2009 if you actually did your job in two thousand nine, if you follow
the policies that were requested, and you say you did? why do we still have this problem for years later? there was a perfect question by mr. duncan -- are we going to have the same thing happen in five years because of the lackadaisical attitude we have in this department? this is your responsibility. why has it not been done? y, four years later, are we still in ms? >> responsibility for firearms rests partly with the department, but also the officer, supervisory chain, the chief, and the director of whatever particular bureau the law enforcement department falls in. to, theyrector spoke do yearly inventories, regular issue aies, and statement every year to ensure that those accountable property items are tracked. my expectation is that the and their programs are executing those requirements through policies we issue an policies issued by the acquisition and property management staff. >> all right, i'm way over time.
if you did everything right, who screwed up? >> the department issued for actually the 2008 and 2009 reports. the park police did not institute all of those policies, which we found out, and we are implementing those recommendations as we speak .ight now >> so ms. chambers screwed up? >> there are many layers of folks that were not taking appropriate accountability. >> so you all screwed up? >> no, i would not say everybody screwed up, sir. ofbers of the force, members the park service, as identified by the ig in the report that apparently were not able to account for their firearms. we take the recommendations to heart. we are implementing them to ensure that they are trained and that they are well aware of their personal accountability
requirement. >> if you took the recommendations from four years ago and did all of that, this ig report should not have happened. somewhere there was a failure. somewhere there was a failure, and someone needs to be responsible for that failure. you elevated this new position to take care of this problem? so someone got promoted to do this? >> the current lieutenant has now been moved into this new position. >> someone on staff has been promoted to this position? , move laterally. >> i think you understand where i'm coming from -- somebody got a new assignment because of this, but that does not solve the problem. i'm sorry, we are going over. >> one of the challenges is
everybody always takes responsibility but nobody is held accountable. that's the problem -- has anybody been fired? no. we have this particular -- persistent problem with weapons. excusable, an "sorry, i will not let that happen again." if president obama wants gun control, he should start with united states park lease -- police. very generous five minutes to the gentlewoman from washington, d.c. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. the board is right to be concerned about the ig report and setting up a system to keep track of guns. anybody who has control of guns
-- i find it also interesting that this committee is as interested as it is in the question since it tried in the all the gun out laws in the district of columbia, which would have given the part police a lot more work than it has now. i'm interested less in beating somebody up than finding out how to get this done, given the personnel issues that face every agency including the park police . did i understand you to say that you are not linked link vacancies, ms. chambers? not sworn vacancies, and civilian ones only as an as- needed basis. -- did i understand you to say that you are not willing filling vacancies. lex the position that had to do
with the control of police throughout the region? >> yes, ma'am, he was a shift commander. >> so somebody will have to do that job, which has to do with law and order. concerned that at a time when even officers of the park lease -- when they leave the park police and create a vacancy that cannot be replaced, we are talking about why they are not shouldhat they clearly have been doing in this climate. all i can say, chief chambers, is in trying to get a hold of , an important responsibility of the parks service, and of the park lease -- police, i certainly hope that of so much of this
hearing from congress that can always be intimidating, you will bear in mind that the public wants our monuments to be safe. our public wants the 20 million visitors who come to this city from around the world to be safe, especially since most of them go to the monuments and to the mall. i can only hope that your first , whatever the concern -- and it is a legitimate concern about these guns -- does exempt you from the law and policeandate of the park . mr. knox, is there any evidence that there has ever been a system to keep control of guns? 't we starting from the ground up?
>> congresswoman, the current state of accountability for weapons at the park police is in disarray. >> i understand that. it sounds to me as though no one ever invented one. >> we do not have a baseline from which to start. there is no point in time where we have confidence in the inventory -- >> bear in mind that essentially no record that the park police has ever in any administration at any time done anything but keep the guns from getting out of their control, and apparently it has done that, but it never had a professional system that we would expect a law enforcement office to have. the park police have been among the most unappreciated and least well staffed federal police forces, and it shows.
i understand this is an important issue. i represent the city. though, of course, in no small measure, this city may be the first to feel the effects of it. but we are asking the park police to create, invent a system that was never in place at a time when they will not be able to replace these officers, no matter how low the number get , when and if they leave. i want to make it clear that there are mandates and there are mandates. i certainly hope nothing in this hearing makes you believe that there is any mandate more important than making sure that our monuments, our visitors, and our people -- our federal employees and people who come to this city in huge numbers every day -- are safe. mr. knox, this may not be done
as fast as it should be, but i assume you also would believe that their first priority should the protective mandate of any police force. >> congresswoman, of course we do. i do as well personally, but i would like to say that weapons accountability is a very fundamental task of law enforcement agencies. and not a difficult one to achieve. it just takes leadership -- >> i'm the first to agree to that. my district would be the first to feel the effects, but you are talking to people who cannot fill any position at any time and whose budget is going to go lower and lower each year unless we do something about it. needs to putone all the cards on the table, and that is the big elephant in this hearing room today. i yield back the balance of my time, and i thank the gentleman. >> i thank the gentlewoman.
i will advise the gentlewoman that the u.s. park service spend some $50 million a year acquiring new property, acquiring new things. we cannot even take care of what we have now. if you share my commitment, we need the proper personnel. they need to be trained. they need to be supervised properly. perhaps the gentlewoman would join me in making sure that rather than acquiring new things and spending the 250 million dollars a year doing so within just this one department, maybe we should take care of what we had here today. i will yield to the gentleman from massachusetts -- i'm sorry, .he gentleman from michigan recognize him for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me be perfectly clear -- there's no doubt in my mind that i do not think our officers on the job are not doing their job prti life and property of the united states government as well as our business. but ms. chambers -- chief
, i'm still a little concerned. you said something is that right? interview, i acquired my staff, what is this term. they provided me with the background. >> how long have you been in this position? >> i was reinstated in 2011. >> that means you held this position before? >> yes. lex what year? >> 2003, 2004. do you have any military experience? >> no. >> i can ask most privates and surveyls what a reported is, and they would tell you. i am surprised and disturbed that some of your rank do not
understand that. in me ask you, if i stopped one of your field offices where there were some pistols, and ask you, would you be able to tell me where it was acquired, who had it, or if somebody signed for it? >> not knowing the capabilities of the financial business management system that we just got access to, i do not know the answer today. i will be glad to find out. >> do i come in and say i would like to check out a rifle. i'm qualified. i am swat trained. i know how this works. had to buy get that weapon? get that weapon? >> it would request that one
assigned to them subpoena have to go to a arms room. >> you do not have an arms room? does have a -- >> it would be a secure room. >> these are locked up overnight? >> correct. >> does he sign for that weapon? >> he better. i do not know the answer. >> there are sign-up procedures. , orhis should be an armorer someone who hands that out. if you are not doing that, i'm going to highly recommend that arends -- you hire veterans? >> they know this stuff backwards and forwards. maybe you should consult somebody who has experience in this area other than somebody who has apparently does not know. ofre should be a chain
titles like and look at right now and see a serial number, and sqa that weapon -- and find out where that weapon is, and who had it at all times. at any moment. in the army, if you did not do that in my unit, it would be relieved on the spot. it would be a report survey on the spot. officers would have their heads rolling if they did not get it fixed within hours. >> that should be the ultimate goal. >> but nobody's heads are rolling. i keep hearing 5-10 years. a reportedknow what survey was in 2002 when you held the position. -- i yieldy time back my time. lex i have a few more questions -- >> i have a few more questions. good cerro green paint on the lincoln memorial and walk away with
anybody noticing? >> if a criminal is intent on committing a crime, he or she can do it. fortunately, we have got technology that has helped us gather the evidence needed in this case. >> why wasn't that person apprehended on the spot? is there no one patrolling? >> he had just left that side of the statue and was on the backside at the moment that it occurred. i'm confident that it happened quickly. >> i find it totally unacceptable that we do not have the adequate control on something so precious and visible. so close to the white house as the lincoln memorial. we will have to get into that further. how much ammunition do you have?
>> we have approximately 500,000 rounds. we will use 200,000 of that in the next few months for requalification that happens twice a year. >> two when a thousand rounds for 640 people. 200,000 rounds for 640 people. that seems off and not -- that seems at an awful lot. , allld like this from you seven of the agencies. i hope you find it reasonable to ask for the current inventory. we have done this other departments and agencies. we did it with social security. we have done it with others. provide us a listing of how the current inventory of all the weapons, broken up by the agencies, that would also
include the inventory of ammunition. asyou could show it historical purchases of weapons and ammunition, for the last five years, that would be very helpful. the final thing i would ask is a projection on what you anticipate purchasing over the next 24 months. i know that crosses a couple different fiscal years and whatnot. but to have some sort of projection, it is not unreasonable. >> i think that for the current inventory it is very reasonable. we can supply that. i can't speak for the other agencies. inventory weapons in an munition -- and ammunition. one caveat, going back and looking over the mast -- the last five years, that is a big
list. as was indicated here behind the scenes, we have transitioned to a new -- >> what is a reasonable time? >> i will have to get back to you on how much time that will take. i want to be able to tell you how long. >> did we say september 7? >> that we could get back to you. i cannot promise you that i can have five years of procurement data to you by september 7. >> by the end of august, you would get invest a current inventory. foran additional 30 days the protection of procurement. is that fair? for the project rejections? -- the next 12s
months. -- i thinkto do the that is reasonable. can we develop all the departments? under those time parameters? >> i don't want to over promise and under deliver. >> you arm the one -- you are the one in charge. >> i will work with the bureaus to make sure they get the direction, and we move forward. >> and they will hit those dates. thank you. i yield to -- recognizes omen from you tell -- i recognize the gentleman from utah. >> i was making sure when you say the gentleman from utah, human to me. mr. knox, you didn't go through an assessment procurement or
storage did you? >> we did not. >> were there anecdotal evidences you saw as you are going through airport? -- through the report? >> they could be enhanced for security. all of which were known by the park police. >> you have a policy for missing weapons? >> yes. theid chief chambers know policy? >> i cannot tell you whether she knew or did not know. >> the claim is that you were not aware of the policy. is that right? >> i believe the report will make one believe that i did not know. that is not accurate. >> you did know? you should've done something
about it. >> we had no evidence of missing weapons. >> there are last request i'm going to make of everyone here. mr. knox, we are going to call for it one more time. >> debbie cig, the position she held. the -- are an ig at permanent ig? >> it is than five years since we had one. call. going to make this there needs to be a permanent ig appointed. it would give credibility to the reports coming out of your office. we need to have a permanent ig. i appreciate that. i do have empathy for the position you have. especially when the park police has an autonomous streak to it. the responsibility is to come back with these reports.
many recommendations are asked to be done by october 1. i would like you to supply our committee with the evidence of what you have done by october 1 to implement these recommendations. i appreciate that. 1 we can get by october implantation reports from what you been doing. are you a political appointee in this? >> merit. >> he will stay there until you decide to retire. we need better jobs. fromis not acceptable those who are under you, and that is all there is. should never come out because in 2003, your entity lost guns. they were found in pawnshops in georgia. this will not happen again.
it should not happen again. it is your responsibility. make sure it never happens again. we will hold you accountable for that. >> you have my commitment, sir. >> being -- the ranking member or massachusetts. instance,s particular have there been identification of loss weapons? >> no. >> non-pawnshops or anything else? >> no, sir. >> you today overview on your report, and recommend they have a better systems. you base that on best practices in mont forstmann -- in the law enforcement field? >> yes. >> mr. jarvis, you have look at thoseink they're reasonable?
>> yes, sir. >> you are in the process of finding accommodations for those recommendations. >> some of been completed. many of the others are on their way. >> you have committed to having a constant overview of this progress. >> yes, sir. we feel we must stay engaged and continue reviews. >> how we do that? >> we will schedule reviews and inspections after we receive results from members on the implementation of a recommendations. >> if they are falling behind the schedule for the time, you'll notified the committee's here today? >> yes. >> no difficulty with that adult? you are set on the process? you have the person of is competent to carry out these recommendations? >> yes. we have n >> you are satisfied ? >> yes.
>> thank you for your testimony. i yield back. your appreciate attentiveness to this matter. the committee now stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] http://twitter.com/cspanwj [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a hearing on irs tax fraud and political targeting of conservative groups. i hearing from tomorrow, looking at more security. on c-span, a hearing held by the oversight committee looking at weapons management by the national parks services. span, livend on c-
coverage of the national governors association annual summer meeting in milwaukee. the nation's governors discussed national infrastructure and the global economy. in-depth. your question for ben carson. 1968, from the, assassinations of bartlett picking junior and robert kennedy to the tet offensive. sunday at 1:00. early today, minority leader nancy pelosi held her weekly briefing on capitol hill. here is an exchange between her and reporter. >> i will answer that if you talk about your glasses. [laughter] >> they are google glasses.
>> what are we doing with them? are we filming? >> it is being filled by those questions. asked by those cameras. >> telling mom what you're looking for lunch. note, shere serious spoke about the upcoming august recess, and why she feels the 113 congress has been a do- nothing congress. here is a look. >> ids went to the american people about going into in august recess and after more than six months in this congress, we still have no jobs bill, no budget bill, and we have the threat of shutting down government, and not raising the repealingng without the affordable care act. congress. do-nothing
now it is something worse. it is an aimless congress that is falling into chaos. to make matters worse, we should not leave until we have addressed the challenges that we face. as soon as we arrived back here in september, where we will have legislative days in september, we will face the deadline at the end of the fiscal year. how can we explain to the american people why we are leaving here now, not having done our work? the plug onpulled by the committee.s bill opposed they pull that bill. wasne pulled it because it a bad bill pray they didn't want the world to see just how bad it was in contrast to a positive
transportation bill that received bipartisan support in the committee on the senate side. a transportation bill. the initiatives they are talking about, the farm bill, cuts, that is probably ensuring they will not be a farm bill. it would be most important. they pulled the interior procreation's bill. this is chaotic. this is not a professional approach to getting the job done, getting solutions. >> you can watch everything online at c-span.org. the justice department held a farewell ceremony for robert mueller. he is retiring after serving 12 years in that post.. eric holder also deliver remarks.
>> good morning. welcome to the celebration of ,he career of robert mueller there are far too many alumni and other dignitaries present for me to point out by name, but you have the opportunity to talk to old friends after this event at the reception in the attorney general's suite. there is one person with us today who am compelled to recognize. the brains, charm, charisma and class of the mohler family -- mu eller family.
his wife, ann. [applause] ife.is is better w [laughter] has spent his entire career in public service, with only a brief interim since the 1960 one he was a decorated marine for his service in vietnam. he has served in three cities of the united states attorney into districts, as the assistant attorney general for the criminal division, the deck but he attorney general, and most recently the director of the fbi. -- as hes that as a departs justice for the last time, hopefully, he will have held every position save
attorney general. one has to wonder whether this time he is really living -- leaving for good. generateame hall, and 1993, we thought we were rid of him for good. there is no sense in warning today about what might happen tomorrow. as the director of 97,ral intelligence from 19 to 2004 per the second longest serving director in agency history. that role, he had the opportunity to work with bob in the three years immediately following 9/11. [applause] >> good morning. it is a great honor for me to be here today to speak about a great public servant, and my friend, bob mueller.
one of the important things to know about him is that he is and always will be a united states marine. service to this country has been his life. swornen occasions, he has to protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. what that has meant for him always is a devotion to duty. to the men and women he has served with, and led. to upholding the law, to speaking bluntly and directly, and as a second lieutenant in vietnam, to putting his life on the line. star and aonze purple heart. his bronze star citation and fearlesslye moved am a with complete disregard for his own safety, and personally led a fire team to recover and mortally wounded marine would fall in any position forward of friendly and liens -- of
friendly alliance. he has never changed. his life has been defined by trust, discipline, and honor. now, when i first met bob mueller and the summer of 2001, it was a bit daunting, like the clash of civilizations. manscene would be cast as a from philly, princeton, high protestant, with a locked jaw, blue blazer, khaki pants, penny loafers, maybe a little old spice to boot. [laughter] greek diner kid from queens, and would never play golf. very soon after 9/11. a special relation was born that
allowed organizations to work with a common spirit that has continued to grow to this day. a special lifelong friendship was born that allowed us to help each other in thousands of different and unspoken ways, the illustrated to all of our colleagues the importance of working together. it was easy because you could trust bob mueller with your life. you would want him back to back with you in the trench, whether facing al qaeda, or the cords inside the beltway who would routinely come out of the hills to survey the wounded. [laughter] everybody who i served knows what i'm talking about. [laughter] i'm going to tell the story about how much bob and i love testifying together. mr. attorney general, i know you love testifying. bob had a unique way of doing this. the first way i testified with
him, he sat there like a choir boy and never moved. i said, you have to where -- you have to promote. >> i have been trained as a prosecutor, i'm not allowed to show emotion. we would sit next to each other, and you know how you before testifying, witnesses cup their hands. everyone thinks we are saying something profound to each other. bob and i would be in the middle of a testimony, and i look up my hands and say something to him like, bob, is not the dumbest question ever heard in your life? shut up. here comes, bob. swim, bobby, swim. shut up. [laughter] are you really going to take that from this guy?
yes senator, i am not worthy. [laughter] this man entrance from the fbi and help keep our country safe. he has reached out to communities across the country, particularly those from other lands, to understand their problems, to build bridges, to inspire common values, and to shape their perception of law enforcement in a truly unique american context. son or daughter wanted to be a public servant, they need to look no further than bob mueller to learn how to do it honorably, with old-school values, that will always end endure. an his love and affection for his family is obvious. for all these years of service, his ace in the hole has been his
college sweetheart. her devotion and sacrifice, her love and commitment to bob and their family has allowed us to enjoy the benefits of their joint service to our country. your smile, your warmth, and your care for the men and women on the app the i -- the men and women of the fbi have been magnificent to behold, and as good as bob is, you're even better. thank you on behalf of my family, and on behalf of intelligence officers for what you have done. for your friendship, and behalf of all of your friends. we desperately hope that you can finally find a job. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. over the past several months, a
great number of people have asked me what bob land to do when the inevitable day came when he left the bureau. until this day, i have reflected the question. i am now authorized to announce that bob has been offered and accepted his dream job, which will start shortly after labor , anda job he was born for has spent his life preparing for. drill instructor at ferris island. [laughter] once.smiling for after a successful career in a number of positions at the fbi, john served as bob's right-hand from 2004-2010. in 2010, the president appointed john as administrator of gsa, a position he holds to this day. john has agreed to field questions from frustrated
travelers in the audience. [laughter] at the back of the hall, the conclusion of this event. [applause] >> the privileges and opportunities of being a tsa administrator. thank you. let me say a few words about bob. some traits, if you will. the first thing that comes to mind for most of us is a leader. a man of character. integrity. equated --shing that and dedicated public servant. humble, principled pragmatist, an innovator and motivator. a few words about those few words. under director mueller, he directed and implemented what is
arguably the most significant change in the fbi's history. some a debate what is been the most significant. i was suggest what has happened in the last full of years. remember the in my five debates, whether the fbi in that post 9/11 world could handle the traditional law enforcement responsibilities that it was known for, and also collect intelligence, and share that. hiss because of george and cooperation, collaboration with reports offer sellers -- officers, which became the baseline for the director of intelligence, that allow the fbi to continue that transformation. in addition to all of the pundits and critics, we have the
official inquiries, the wmd commissions, the advisory boards forming, his own directors advisory board, giving suggestions, advice, input, as to what the fbi needed to do. then our experts, something new with a were talking about, and most of the others who are also giving their views to bob mueller. he adeptly ande, successfully navigated to all the different and competing views on who the fbi should be, and how they should carry out their mission. it is because of that they fbi today is able to serve a vital national security mission. i mentioned he is humble. tes liments, a few you have heard this morning, many which are not known and probably will
never be known because of this ability, he has never been one to seek out the limelight. he is quick to give others credits, and mentor others such as myself. , without our reporters, there is not a single reporter on bob mueller's speed out. we could check that to make sure. that may give one example of all the traits that i have mentioned. one of his favorite agencies, the office of inspector general, gave a critical report of on the fbi's use of national security measures. procedures and protocols, the things we are having today. bob decided to hold a press conference at headquarters. the last 12 years, how many press conferences did he hold at headquarters?
up in a ubles set shape. reporters jammed in there because they saw possible blood in the water. the director and the deputy .irector were seated at the end the notion must have everyone see it because that would keep everyone 80s -- at ease. he says, you may ask who is responsible for this, and who is accountable. without missing a beat, he turned to me and said the deputy director is. [laughter] that may be a slight variation of facts. being the principal leader that he has, he says i'm responsible, and i'm going to fix this. , he was aabout fixing
motivator. that is when the motivator part of bob mueller came in, kicked in, and i do mean kicked in. we did get it fixed. as long as we are talking inside baseball, there is a phrase that is well known on the seventh floor at headquarters that has been uttered a few times in the last 12 years. handle, needing to know how to delegate. that is something that happens from time to time. i thank you for those lessons, bob. i have learned the benefits of doing that. a couple of brief points to wrap up. ann leave service, and you start traveling without your security, there are a couple of words you need to know that will be important to you. precis tsa project --
heck. trust me on this. [laughter] of all the behalf men and women of the fbi would've had the privilege and honor of serving with mr. director bob mueller these last 12 years, let me express a profound appreciation and gratitude for what you have done in guiding the bureau three tumultuous time, with integrity and distinction, and just to say thanks, is one of your deputy directors, for encouraging me and teaching me lessons in leadership, for which i've had the opportunity to use. -- as you goent into the next chapter of your life, best wishes, and godspeed in all you do.
[applause] >> thank you, john. i think that to brief anecdotes are eliminating about this attorney general, and director mueller. , notay in the mid-1990's long after he left the position of it -- deputy attorney general, he called me and advised the u.s. attorney eric holder had offered him the position of senior litigation in the homicide unit of the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. bob wanted to take the job, but he recognize he been a political appointee of the immediately previous it ministration, and did not want to accept this
position in the career service that would cause any discomfort. they asked me to run the traps. when i brought the question to the deputy attorney, she said with her customary subtlety intact, that is a no-brainer. everyone knows that he is an outstanding prosecutor, and derek is fortunate to get him. when i asked why he wanted this ,ob, let's say private practice not a prestigious a title as assistant attorney general, he replied that he wanted to give something back to the community, and this was the best way he knew how to do it. a couple of years later, i was looking for an outstanding candidate to serve as interim united state's attorney in san francisco after a sudden vacancy. i was a dead-end -- at a dead- end. i advise eric holder of my
failure. he said to call mueller. the rest is history. he did such a good job that president clinton appointed him to that position. in perilous times, when this department find the necessary to go to the mattresses, there is no one i would rather have at my side them bob mueller, except comey.ing -- jim [laughter] i admire him. i respect him. as much as i hate to admit it, i do love the guy. loss to another [indiscernible]
give me a moment to collect my thoughts. i'm not used to complementing the director. [laughter] one of the perks of spending almost a half-century in this department is the opportunity to watch a brawl, talented honor a departmentto leader. assignments and 70 attorney general, and the most challenging times, effectively, with grace, and never losing his marvelous inch -- marvelous sense of humor. the deputy attorney general of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. a lot of things are similar
about bob today. he has touched so many people, in such of the -- in much of the same way. i first met him more than 30 years ago. he was an asu in boston. i come up to to help on a case. i met bob. he was one of the most seasoned prosecutors they had the office. when i met him, the words that came to mind were talented, smart, respected. as they looked at him, i realized when i grow up as a prosecutor, i want to be like bob. i want to be that kind of prosecutor. toeral years later, bob came -- and then as the assistant attorney general for the criminal division. i was the deputy chief of the public integrity section, and in the privilege of working with
bob on frequent occasions. ira member when dealing with him, particularly sensitive cases, the words that came to mind then were leadership and support. bob would not only go out of his way to make sure you had everything you needed, and the resources you needed to be successful in a case, but there is on experiences, he would talk through with you the intricacies of the case. inevitably, you end up with tremendous value of being added from those encounters. as we all know, we have heard several times today, bob left his position as the assistant attorney general for private practice for 20 minutes. he didn't extraordinary thing. he returned to the apartment doing homicide cases. d.c. was going through a rough time of increased murders at this time. bob wanted to help.
as i solve this -- as i solve this s, the words that came to mind were humility. he sought public service that had to be done, and he did it. without fanfare, without glory, without any reward. he just didn't because it was the right -- he just did it because it was the right thing to do. i was asked to go to san francisco and take over to put it back in shape. he probably did not want to leave the scene, but he did it. the words that came to mind were team player and leader. he restore that office, and to this day, they still talk about him as the best united states attorney they've ever had.
since bob became the director of the fbi, i have both followed his work from afar, and had the privilege of working with them for almost three years now as he is transformed this agency in the wake of 9/11 into the most effective counterterrorism and law enforcement agency on the face of the earth. working with him every day, the words that come to mind are politically astute, why is, dedicated to the rule of law. all necessary attributes you need to have to work your way through the vast array of unimaginable issues that confront us every day. are trying to sum up the career of a man who has had all these roles, and done that in an exemplary way.
who has given virtually his entire career to his country, and has done in a way that has served as an example to the world is what we stand for as a nation. when i put that together, the word that comes to mind best to describe bob is patriot. , not only for what you have done for the department of justice, and for the nation, but thank you for all have gained from having had the privilege of getting to work with you over so many years. i wish you well, my friend. [applause] [laughter] >> the only thing better than getting to work with bob mueller is getting the opportunity to work with bob mueller and eric holder. both are public servants in the same old -- mold.
getting it right, the rule of law, and ethics mean everything. this is the kind of department that the two of them together have established. to youy honor to present the attorney general of the united states. [applause] >>, thank you. good morning. thank you for those kind words. thank you all for being here. it is an honor to be with you all this morning. a privilege to welcome bob's wife and their family. as anyone who knows bob can tell you, his passion for his work is exceeded only by his dedication to his family. it is great to have all of you here with us, including the dour. i want to welcome our distinguished guests, too numerous to mention.
a former attorneys general, heads of the fbi, members of congress. we have the head of the cia. it is great to have y'all here with us. , i current officials here want to thank you all for taking the time to be here with us today. david for being an incomparable master of sir monies. he was supposed to give a sign to the color guard to start the event. [laughter] we always have to cover for him. [laughter] here.out of normally, this is where i might say it is a pleasure to join you all for this important event. i know this is a mama we all
have been dreading for quite some time. the day we have to try and do our jobs without bob mueller. nevertheless, i appreciate this chance to sting what -- dan with a distinguished -- to stand with a distinguished group, celebrating his contribution of protecting our fellow citizens from crime, ensuring now so security, and transforming the fbi into the dynamic organization it is today. as you have heard, his service to our nation began long before he became one of the top law- enforcement officials in the country. before he served as deputy attorney general, or assistant for the criminal division. before he assumed his post for the northern district of california. his patriotism and dedication to service have defined and distinguished just about his entire life, beginning with the
mama he graduated from college and decided to join the nine states marine corps. as the officer, he was entrusted to lead a rifle platoon. a legendary division in vietnam. for his exemplary conduct, he was awarded the bronze star, navy commendation medals, the purple heart, and the vietnamese cross for gallantry. superiorsised by his for his courage, his aggressive initiative, and has unwavering devotion to duty. as anyone who has had the privilege of working with bob will tell you, these qualities from -- have remained his hallmark since then. i know there is no such thing as a former marine. and after he left the court became a litigator, his passion for public service drew them back to the federal government as a prosecutor.
over the next two decades, he held a variety of positions. role ofled in every high profile and prosecutions, from organized crimes and fraud cases to the infamous -- bombing, to the prosecution of [indiscernible] . his humility, and his natural sense of leadership were on constant display. i think the single best illustration of his sense of duty and passion for public service came after he left the justice department in the mid- 1990's. this is supposed be my store. everyone has talked about it. i'm going to say to get anyway. at that time, i was serving as the united states attorney for the district of columbia. he had been working in a white- collar crime litigation firm for
a couple of years. he called me one day and said bob mueller is on the phone. he asked if i could use a homicide prosecutor in my office. i was thinking, sure. bob said he was talking about himself. he had a great job. there was no way i would be able to match his current salary. having already served as assistant attorney general for the criminal division, he might be overqualified for a job as a prosecutor. before he could change his mind, i just said, when can you start? for i knew it, he was hard at withwith ace -- litigators, heading to crime and developing-- relations with the people of the city. not long after, he became chief of the homicide section. much to everyone's annoyance, he called early morning meetings even after he and everyone else
had pulled late nights at the office. our city was in distress. we were called the murder capital of the united states. his work literally help to save lives, and make better the lives of people who were too often unseen or forgotten. he was there to make a difference. he did. he was determined not to get back on the other side of the courtroom, but to serve the people of our city, to make us safer, and to represent the interests of the people of the united states. that is why was no surprise when --1999 -- 1998, clinton he did a great job. president bush nominated him to become fbi director, a position to which he was unanimously confirmed in 2001. the rest is history. like many of you, i cannot imagine the bureau or the justice department, or my professional life without bob.
since i took office as attorney general in 2009, he and i have started every day together, briefed about the most serious threats about the united states and american citizens around the world. let me assure you, as much as i like this guy, this is not a fun way to start your day. there is no question that the american people are safer cousin bob mueller has been in those meetings every day for the past 12 years. during his time as director, bob has served as a key advisor to presidents, and indispensable partner to me. 11,he years since september which occurred one week into his tenure, he is led out in less than a large-scale and historic transformation of the bureau. he is adjusted its capabilities, redefining it as an intelligence agency, and led efforts to forge and investigate the most serious
terrorist plots our nation has faced since 9/11. along the way, he has one respect and admiration of his colleagues. brave men and women who have served in washington, and across the country, and around the world. he has fostered a culture of unsurpassed excellence at every level of the bureau, ensuring every agent, technician, every support professional is dedicated to an incredible effort of combating crime. he has said the standard for what it means to be the director of the fbi, position the bureau dealing with the 21st entry threat it has to confront without losing sight of missions. that is why when his tenure -- 10 year term, president obama took the step to ask the senate to ask dented by two full years. that is why the senate unanimously approved that
request. that is why i regret i never will to convince bob to stick around for another two years, or maybe another 12. i'm confident he will leave this nation not only safer, but more prepared than he found it. bob, as you open an exciting new chapter in your life, and take a well-deserved vacation, i wish you nothing but the best. i thank you bob for your leadership, fear your service, and most of all for your friendship. nation, i wante , for yourou ann sacrifice of these many years. standing with this great man has been a truly great woman. i know i speak for president obama, and everyone in this hall today, and many others beyond it when i say that while we are comey willhat jim be a right director, all of us
will miss you a great deal. your example, and your tireless dedication will inspire us for many years to come. wherever your career may lead you, you should know that you are, and always will be an essential part of the justice department family. you will be a dealer -- dear friend. for he takes the podium, i would like to make a special presentation. the highest award i can bestow within the justice department is 's awardrney general for exceptional service. today, in recognition of bob mueller's leadership of the fbi, his contributions over the course of his career, and his exemplary service to the american people, it is my privilege to present him with this year's exceptional service award. [applause]
sequestration, he gets to hold on to it, but i take it back. [laughter] there is only one of these per year. [laughter] it is now my leisure to introduce the direct -- leisure to introduce the director of the federal bureau of investigation, mr. robert mueller. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you. we had to get out of here. thank you. thank you.
, speakers, for the hyperbole. it is a pleasure to hear that. toh of you will be happy know that my farewell speech the be half as long as farewell speech by george tenet when he left the agency. [laughter] honor to tell you what an it is to see so many friends, colleagues, relationships that span a decade. thank you to the general for hosting the event and for the speakers and the kind words. as i look around the room i see individuals whose good judgment and wise counsel made a huge difference to me personally and professionally, whether it be from the u.s. attorneys offices in boston, san francisco washington, to my colleagues here at the department of justice, past and present, and
law enforcement partners across the country and counterparts in the intelligence community, to the men and women of the fbi. i will say, george, i was appreciative of your comments about testifying, that i will tell you that george has a selective memory. [laughter] it is true that george would compare better a -- complained bitterly about the tenor of some of the questions and try to get me to smile, where i would point out to george that he was the architect of similar questions, one of those carrying the banner 20 with the staff director of the senate committee on intelligence, and we had to appear before the committee. [laughter] all right. i always say i have been blessed with three families -- my own family, my marine corps family, in my justice and fbi family.
first and foremost, i have been blessed with my family -- my cynthia, two daughters, and melissa, and their families, now, and i will tell you that many of us work long hours, spend time away from our families reluctantly, but out of necessity and our spouses and significant others carry the lion's share of the burden on the homefront. i will say that the absence from home might be seen on occasion from some in the family as a plus, and i'm reminded of one of my favorite stories that comes from a police officer that was a graduation speaker at one of the classes of the national academy. for those not aware, the national academy program provides training to state and law enforcement officers at the quantico facility over 10 weeks, related,is story was
sometime after the officer graduated, he was reminiscing about the good times he had to quantico, and he said the weeks he spent at the academy where the best 10 weeks of his life. his teenage daughter looked at him and said to be perfectly honest, they were the best 10 weeks of my life, too. [laughter] i must have told that story 100 times. [laughter] regardless, i want to say thank an to my wife and, -- i wife n and my daughters for their understanding. i could not answer without their support. i am also blessed being part of the marine corps family, who taught valued service, of service, sacrifice, discipline, leadership, teamwork and integrity -- lessons i could not have learned in quite the same way elsewhere, and lessons i have tried to carry with me throughout life. lastly, i have been blessed with my justice and fbi family.
as has been pointed out, i have spent the better part of my career, and i would say the best part of my career with the department of justice and the fbi. i have been fortunate to work with old friends and new colleagues alike -- individuals of honesty and integrity. this includes on the one hand, margolis, better known to all of you as methuselah. [laughter] and on the other hand, my executive assistant, wanda, known to many of you, who have said, perhaps accurately so, to be the one that runs the bureau, particularly because of her common sense, organizational skills, and i might add, her intimidation factor. [laughter] all of us that no one do, please say thank you for her years of service. [applause]
i have always been proud to say that i work for the department of justice because of that for which it stands, which is an unyielding commitment to the rule of law and to the safety and the security of the citizens that we serve. i have also been honored to work with the individuals who have given the justice department's its legacy and lasting impact. over the years, many of you have worked hard to advise me, and most particularly to ensure that i cap things into perspective. ie roles comes to mind when discussed this issue, and many may have heard this story before but it bears repeating. of was a college classmate mine and a longtime department of justice probably known to many of you -- he was my former chief of staff who passed away two years ago and he is missed
by many of us in this room today, but he does exemplify what the department is like. through the to cut nonsense and get to the heart of the matter better than anyone and he also knew how to put me in my place. i remember when heated meeting everyone was frustrated, mostly with me, and i might have been a wee bit ill tempered. wanda is laughing. and then posely the following question out of the blue -- "what is the difference between the director of the fbi and a four-year-old child questio? -- four-year-old child?" the room grew hushed, and finally he said "height." [laughter] professionalism and
sacrifices made by those in law enforcement. some are on the darkest days when we used -- lose agency -- agents in the line of duty, reminding us of the great danger that our agents, officers and deputies willingly assume. it has been my privilege to work with so many dedicated and talented public servants -- men and women who give everything in their power to keep the american people safe on the men and women for whom the law is the guiding principle -- safe, men and women for whom the rule of law is the guiding principle. let me close by saying that the guidance i have been given in the marine corps, and at the department of justice and the fbi are gifts that i have not anticipated, and for which i will be forever riffle. -- grateful. while it is difficult to leave this family, i leave knowing the work will continue under the leadership of individuals in the
>> thank you to glenn and his team for putting this program together. they did a splendid job. that concludes our program and we will see you all upstairs. thank you forthcoming. -- upstairs. thank you for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> earlier today on capitol hill, a house oversight subcommittee held a hearing on irs tax fraud and targeting of conservative groups. it marks here from acting commissioner daniel warfel on those issues. >> the notion that we are impeding or instructing is completely false. in fact, the opposite is true. are involved in a thorough,
comprehensive effort to cooperate with the congressional committees that are asking for and fors, questions documents, and there is substantial evidence that demonstrates our full cooperation. i have been in the seat for nine weeks. we are getting better and more effective at producing this .iscovery on a day to day basis i have more than 100 and boys document request that chairman darrell issa raise about, this includes 70 employees working full time. we are producing documents on a weekly rolling basis. this committee will have over 16,000 pages of documents that will be delivered, but the congress as a whole, as of today, there will be 70,000 pages of documents. what is important about the redaction process here, and what is important to make sure the public and the american people understand is that all of these
documents are being produced to congress. about, this includes 70 employees working full time. we are producing documents on a weekly rolling basis. we operate and legal constraints of what we can deliver to who and two when. >> that hearing leading off our prime time tonight here on c- span. the-span2, though -- with worldwide travel alert, a hearing on more security at u.s. embassies. the c-span3, a house oversight weapons committee hearing on oversight management of the national park service's. this weekend, live coverage of the national governors association annual meeting in the walkie, wisconsin, -- no walkie, wisconsin, discussing infrastructure and the global economy. tv, your questions and then oncarson american history tv, 1968 --
from the assassination of martin luther king jr.we and robert kennedy, to the ted offensive. sunday at 1:00 p.m.. earlier today, the house wrapped up legislative work for the week and the month. members headed back to their home district. before leaving, the chamber approved several republican-let measures, including one that would require congressional approval of any regulations costing more than $100 million and they also voted to block the irs from intimate in any part of the healthcare law. here is the debate now from earlier. it is one hour and 10 minutes.
well before the irs was involved in healthcare and sharing information, let's first look at the job the irs is already doing. investigated i claims. 2010, i investigated and it turned out to be true, the irs was abusing authority and harassing conservatives. that was the tip of the iceberg. we certainly aren't about more accusation -- about more accusations. we have three percent of the documents we have not requested. we found that the irs did leak
confidential information. supportinglay those conservative causes and threatened conservatives with higher taxes. democrats want to give this agency more power and authority? they want this agency involved in americans healthcare? no way. even the agency's own watchdog says the irs cannot handle the job. less than two weeks ago, the independent treasury inspector general stated they are not confident about the irs's ability to protect confidential taxpayer information or to prevent fraud. neither am i. by every indication, neither are the american people. it has been three years since the healthcare law has passed. in less than two months, the administration claims it will be fully ready to implement the law, but in the face of all these failures, these reaches of americans trust, more
than ever want the law to be repealed. why? it is simple. obamacare has brought increased healthcare costs to families and individuals, stifled businesses from expanding, and forced american job creators to cut jobs, wages and hours. just yesterday, at a hearings -- at a hearing at the ways and means committee, key official could not confirm that the healthcare law would lower the healthcare cost for hard-working families in my home state of michigan. is this the signature promise of the administration -- that premiums the $2500 lower, and now the administration can not make good on that promise. with so little time before the exchanges are set to open and have families to plan their healthcare spending for the next year, it is extremely concerning that the administration cannot tell the american people what their health insurance will look
like or what it will cost. simply put, this law is a failure and it ought to be repealed, but it did not have to be this way. the house republican alternative to the democrats healthcare law, which i offered, with the only scored by the nonpartisan congressional budget office as meeting the top health priorities of american families because it was the only bill that actually lower the cost of health insurance premiums, and it did not give the irs a single new power. priorities of american families because it was the only bill that actually lower the cost of health insurance premiums, and it did not give the irs a single new power. the cap the irs out of your healthcare, which is exactly out irs out of your healthcare, which is exactly what this bill should do. poweruld reduce the irs's and authority to harass americans. that is what this bill does. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes.
>> the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. >> are you of myself as much time as i may consume. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> we are now seven months into this house republican session. a has been nothing more than bridge to nowhere -- nowhere on jobs, nowhere on immigration reform, nowhere on a budget agreement and nowhere on most appropriation bills. instead, house republicans today continue their obsession, so vividly embraced by the chairman of our committee in his words, with trying to destroy the bridge built by the president and the democratic congress to somewhere vital, putting all americans in charge of their own health care. this bill before us is nothing more than a continuation of republicans behind obsession
with-- blind obsession repealing the affordable care act. this is how republicans have chosen to spend the last day here before recess for five weeks. clear thes so republican mission is to destroy -- to destroy, not implement healthcare reform, and rather than help leading on the issue, house republicans have spent the last two-plus years trying to mislead americans about healthcare rights under aca and now we can expect more misinformation and the statement of our chairman is loaded with it. example, have published preliminary premiums for marketplace coverage, and within those states americans will be able to purchase insurance at a price that is, on
average, 20% below what the cbo estimated, and in michigan there will be 14 insurance carriers in the marketplace. someone comes up here and says healthcare reform is failing. theto the american people, prepared for more -- be prepared for more scare tactics and other misguided efforts from republicans to convince constituents that are applying for health care will be time- consuming and cumbersome, and be prepared for all kinds of misstatements about the powers and the role of the irs. this should be said categorically -- neither the irs nor the department of health and human services will have access to medical records were other person -- or other personal history -- no access whatsoever.
i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. >> thank you. at this point i yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from georgia, dr. price, and i asked unanimous consent that he controlled the remainder of the time. >> without objection, the chairman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you. i want to say thank you to the chairman for his work on this and so many vital areas on the issue of healthcare in our committee. thank you for the time and the opportunity to bring this bill forward. after speaker, republicans go in healthcare is to make sure we have the highest quality healthcare in the world. we wanted to be patient-centered healthcare, not government- centered healthcare. we believe patients and doctors should be making of decisions,
d.c., so this, the irsws out of activities that have come to light in this country over the past number of months. as the chair mentioned, we have been doing a number of oversight hearing in our committee and the american people have drawn a conclusion about the irs, and that conclusion is that it can not be trusted now. the irs activities that have come to light in this country over the past number of months. the chairman mentioned the irs has targeted groups that came to the irs asking for tax exempt status, targeting groups for political ideology. the irs has leaked donor information to those groups, and many of us believe, and i think it will come out that the irs has, in fact, targeted donors to those groups for audits to those individual americans. chillinger, this is activity from the internal revenue service and the american people have lost their faith and trust. that is why this bill is so important. it is a simple piece of legislation -- two pages, and
all it says is what the american people believe, the irs should not be charged have the authority to either implement or enforce the affordable care act. over 140 cosponsors from this house of representatives. i want to commend them for being cosponsors. we have hundreds of citizen cosponsors from across the country. some say this is not necessary, that it will not publish anything, there is no reason why the irs would want that information anyway. the fact of the matter, esther speaker, is that is exactly what they said about what they did for the tax-exempt groups. they said it was not necessary for them to get the information about political ideology, believe or prayers that prayer groups were offering -- that was not necessary either. if that was not necessary, mr. speaker, how could you make in people have confidence the irs will not also do something that is nessus -- unnecessary, and
that is to engage in implement in themselves in the trusted relationship between patients and physicians. is the piece of evidence individual who is running the irs division that is charged with the enforcement of the affordable care act. that individual, sarah hall ingram -- you do not have to look back far in her biography to realize she was the individual in charge of the tax- exempt group in the irs at the time when the challenges to the irs have been focused. so, mr. speaker, the overwhelming percent of the american people understand and appreciate that the irs should not be involved -- not be involved in the healthcare of this nation. we believe that patients, doctors and families ought to be making medical decisions, not washington, d.c., and certainly not internal revenue service. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the germans time is reserved. >> german from -- the
gentleman's time is reserved. >> mr. speaker, i would remind my distinguished colleague from georgia of a story in the bible about a king who was very famous and one day he noticeded on the wall some writing and he had someone come in and interpret for him and the writing said, your days are numbered upon the earth. now, your days are numbered on this issue. you have 59 more days. i'm sure you can bring up a bill every single day to try it.repeal the speaker's announced there will be two more.
but it will not work. this is going to be the law on 1 october and it's going to go into effect. the supreme court has spoke efrpblt the speaker has already said it's the law of the land. yet we see it. the speaker's announced that ho strategy. and it's worse than hopeless. it's mean because you are saying you want to take away from people what they already have. -- guaranteed issue, coverage for their kids until age 26 and lifetime gone -- all that you want too take away. well, have a great break because you're going to go back to your districts and explain for 38 days why you will not provide health care coverage for the people of america. i hear there's a mythical bill with 141 signatures. the republicans have been running the ways and means committee for 16 out of the last 18 years and we have never had a bill put in front of us for a vote. it's never been through the rules committee. it's never been out to the floor. you have no plan! you have a piece of paper that you wave around but you won't go out and defend it.
the president came and put a bill out here and we passed it, and we're defending it and it's going to go into effect and provide what all americans pant -- want, security if they get sick. they want to know they'll be covered. they want to know they won't be bankrupt. vote no again today and we'll be back after the break for a few more no votes. >> the gentleman's time has expired. members are also advised to direct their comments to the chair respectfully. the gentleman from georgia? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that a letter from the senior coalition be inserted into the record. >> without objection. >> please yield a minute and a half to the gentleman, mr. carter. >> i thank you for yielding and for bringing forward this bill. bet if you g to took a poll in any household in america and said who do you trust, the i.r.s. or your octor, doctors would
overwhelmingly be trusted. i.r.s. would be overwhelmingly distrusted. i don't understand when we ctually pass laws in this overwhelmingly the access tricting to health care information and putting severe impeachments on our health care providers for releasing the information and the hipa laws, they've been around for a while, i'd say, but then we write a bill that turns this entire health care administration over to the one agency that the american people hate for -- more than any other agency. now, some of the democrats like it because they get -- like to get other people's money and pend it. but the reality is the i.r.s. is not trusted. it wasn't the access trusted be events described.
today they're totally distrusted and feared because of what they can do to the private lives of american citizens. this bill speaks for the american people and they say don't let the i.r.s. get their hands on our health care, they will destroy us. heb -- remember, they're the one agency that doesn't have to meet a burd of proof. they require the public to meet the burden of proof. don't let the i.r.s. get their hands on our health care. yield back the >> the gentleman from mitch? >> i yield myself 15 seconds. saying that the entire administration of health care is turned to the i.r.s. is a big lie. it's a big lie. the i.r.s. will not have access to the medical records or personal heat. hit of a single american. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished colleague of mine rom oregon, mr. bloom.
>> thank you, mr. speaker, this is a fitting conclusion to a week that has shown the collapse of the republican legislative agenda. remember, this is the time we were supposed to be voting on budgets. but the republicans cannot even bring themselves to allow a vote on the budget that they themselves have mandated. so we're not voting on the transportation and hud, not voting on interior. they refuse to allow a conference committee to be appointed so that we can reconcile differences on the budget. setting up a showdown over a shutdown of the government next month. and now we're dealing with health care for arguably the 40th time that they are going to, quote, repeal it. the bill's not going anywhere.
they have repeatedly demonstrated at our hearing esterday in ways and means that my republican colleagues don't even understand how the bill that they are so adamantly opposed to, they don't even understand how it works. we have not seen any attempt to improve, to refine, what we have seen it -- is an unprecedented effort to sabotage legislation, to make it not work for the american people, to confuse, to undercut, something that is unprecedented to the best of my knowledge in what we've had in the congress in the past. ut what more fitting illustration of a group that is bankrupt of ideas and bent on simply attempting to force their way for an agenda that is
so extreme that they cannot agree to bring it to the floor to vote on it. i urge rejection of this charade. >> the gentleman from georgia? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that a letter from the group let freedom ring endorsing 2009 be inserted in the record. >> without jocx. >> i am pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from the great second -- state of michigan. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 90 seconds. >> i rise today in support of h.d. 2009 and urge colleagues to support this necessary legislation. the bill will keep the internal revenue service from implementing any aspect of the president's health care law. with the recent revelations that the i.r.s. targeted u.s. citizens on the basis of their political views it's imper
atisk that we keep the i.r.s. from being further involved than it already is in the lives of the american people. this legislation would reweal both the individual and employer mandate while at the same time, helping to shrink the i.r.s. as a doctor i've been talking care of patients for 35 years and i know that putting the i.r.s. between patience -- patients and doctors would be daft rus. this legislation is a good step toward rolling back this massive expansion of federal government power. i am proud to be a co-response of this legislation and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of it. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from michigan? >> it's now a special pleasure to yield to the gentleman who presided over the passage of medicare 48 years ago and has worked on health care issues his entire historic career, mr. dingell from the state of
michigan. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> for a minute and a half. the gentleman is recognized for one and one half minutes. >> i thank my beloved moved friend for yielding me this time and i rise to ask aren't you embarrassed to go a 40th time in a fruitless, hopeless act? it's the 40th time we've tried to kill the slegs. cost us $1.5 million every time, none of which has been successful. my republican colleagues have never come forward with a proposal they have presented to that house but they sit over there railing and complaining about what is going on. they would take the rights of the american people nor protection against preexisting conditions bans in their insurance. they're going to take away from the american people all kinds of protection is which we have
n the affordable care act. the president or the speaker the other say -- day said the remembers -- republicans are the party of repeal. he's right. i think we ought not to call them the republicans any more but the repeal icans or the repeal cats. they can't enact anything. 12 bills i think this congress has sent to the white house and there is small prospect of anything more coming from here. it's interesting to note they can't move a budget, they can't do legislation on jobs, they're incapable of saying we do the other things that are necessary to help the middle class and yet we keep coming over here with nonsense like this. the republican party is like the bower bons of france. they forget nothing because they never learned anything.
>> i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the americans for prosperity encoursing 2009 be inserted in the record. >> without jocx -- objection. >> i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate very much the gentleman from georgia filing this important legislation and i feel my day is not complete. unless we get a chance to cut spending and cut obamacare. obamacare coptains more than 20 tax increases and gives the i.r.s. unprecedented authority to collect personal health information from more than 300 million americans. obamacare requires all insurance companies to report to the i.r.s. the name, address, identification number and type of insurance policy powered -- purchased by every customer, along with the
determination whether or not the insurance was, quote, government approved. i'm very proud to be a co-author of dr. price's legislation that will prohibit the i.r.s. from collecting our personal health care physician -- foogs. -- information. since the i.r.s. has admitted this i've heard from so many stints who are members of patriotic organizations. they stepped up for the first time in their lives to get involved in organizations like the texas tea party, the king street patriots, and for standing up ats -- as patriots and trying to do the right things for the right reasons they were targeted by the i.r.s. and harassed. today the i.r.s. is spending 80% of its budget trying to implement obamacare. and jack plouffe testified the administration has approximately 700 full-time staff working on implement and now wants to hire another 2,000
to continue the implementation be obama care. i yield back the minute of my time. >> i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey who's been a leader on this issue, mr. andrews. >> gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and p extend my remarks. >> without objection. >> thank you. colleagues, somewhere inmark today a family is ge -- going to get the devastating news they dread about their children. they're going to hear that that lump in their daughter's stomach is cancer and they're going to go home and have all the agony and suffering and unthinkable thoughts parents -- parents have in that situation but they're going to be faced with another problem because they have no health insurance. both the work, they make about $40,000 a year between the two of them. they don't get coverage at work and they can't afford health
insurance. so their agony is not just worried about the health of their child. they're worried about the fact that they give the child the care that she needs to -- they'll lose everything they have and wind up in bankruptcy court. the affordable care act says to that couple that starting january 1 for $40 a week they can have health care insurance as good as members of congress do. that's what the affordable care act says. this bill repales that for that family. those who are prepared to vote for this bill should also be prepared to answer the following question. if you want to say to that family that their concern isn't important enough, what's your plan? what's your answer to them? we hear that people have introduced bills and sent around letters. here's the facts the it's been almost 1,000 days that the republic party has been back in
control of the house of representatives. the number of bills they have voted on to replace this law is zero! zero. 40 times to repeal it, zero times to replace it. this debate is not about republicans and democrats. it's about that family with that daughter that has no health insurance if you repeal this law and pass this bill. this is no man. this is no responsibility. and this is no way to deal with the concerns of middle class americans. vote no. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter group ort from the restore america's voice. >> without objection. >> i would like to recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. kantor.
>> i thank the gentleman from georgia. i rise today to support the keep the i.r.s. off your health care act and i want to congratulate the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor, not only a timely bill but essential to the health and well-being of all americans. in response to the assertions of the prior gentleman that spoke from new jersey i would simply say those scare tactics do not have a place in legitimate debate on this floor. scare tactics to say that somehow republicans on our side of the aisle don't care about people's health care are just not true. you know, we don't believe in omnibus washington-engineered health care. that's what's going on here. washington bureaucrats deciding what kind of health care you can have, which doctors you can see, how much those doctors and hospitals are going to get paid, how the insurance companies have to act. all of that is in the hands of
washington bureaucrats under obama care, which is why this bill and this law is suffering so much in terms of the minds of the public. this is not the right way to go. we believe in patient-centered care. republicans believe that it ought to be about the doctor-patient relationship, not between the bureaucrats and the doctors. it ought not be about the bureaucrats and the insurance companies. it ought to start with the patients and their families. so these scare tactics, really, mr. speaker, are not relevant to this discussion and they are just that, scare tactics. we care about the health and well being of the american people, which is why this bill is coming to the floor. recently, mr. speaker, we've learned that the i.r.s. has been abusing its power, targeting and punishing american citizens for their political beliefs. and then recklessly spending taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences and bonuses for its
employees. this kind of government abuse must stop. the last thing we should do now is to allow the i.r.s. to play such a central role in our health care. the i.r.s. has a role in nearly 50 different aspects of obama care. the agency's involvement is so extensive that there is a designated office within the i.r.s. just to implement obamacare. the i.r.s. will have access to the american people's protected health care information. iven that this same agency has jill -- illegally disclosed protected taxpayer information, the privacy concerns raised by many are legitimate. this is nothing short of an unwelcome big government
overreach into the most personal aspects of our lives. obamacare is bad for the economy and for working middle class families. it increases costs, impedes innovation, and we know is now turning full time jobs into part time jobs. which is why so many on both sides of the political spectrum are now beginning to realize in the words of three democratic union leaders, that this law is creating nightmare scenarios in the health and well-being of millions of hard-working americans. the legislation before us today would at least prevent the unnecessary intrusion of the i.r.s. into our health care. members of both parties should be focused on removing the federal bureaucracy from the everyday lives of 9 american people, and this act will do just that.
again, i'd like to thank the gentleman from georgia, dr. price, for his hard work on this issue and i strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan? >> i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of doggett of e, mr. texas. >> recognized for two minutes. >> majority leader is absolutely right about scare tactics. you are an uninshured american and you get a diagnosis of cancer this morning, or you are hit in a head off on collision this afternoon or you are a child born with a disability, you ought to be very scared. he's also absolutely scared about the need for patient-centered health care. we're concerned about that. we're concerned that patients without insurance today are centered right in the bankruptcy court. more and more americans faced with a health care crisis.
this bill has nothing to do with the internal revenue service or the treasury department or restricting their rights. it's about restricting your rights. now that we finally have a chance to protect america -- americans from insurance monopoly price gouging, from fine print in the contract for those who do have the insurance that denies rights at the very time that you need them the most, that kind of protection about to go into effect along with right of so many americans who are uninsured to go to a competitive private insurance marketplace and pick the policy that is best for their family. and for many americans, to have a premium tax credit, a tax credit that they want to deny to you, and what alternative do they offer? well, the best source is the site. l republican web
i urge you though you will find plenty of misinformation there go to gop do the goveb -- gop .gov because you will find one very revealing fact. when you look at what the republicans have to offer as an altern aive to obama care you will see two words. in progress. it's been in progress two and a half years since they first the to repeal the bill first time up to today ond the -- and the 40th care. they have one alternative to obamacare and it's called nothing care. the folks i represent in san antonio extexas -- >> the time of the gentleman that's expired -- >> may he have another 15 seconds? >> the folks i represent, the working families from san antonio to austin, they deserve to have some assistance. we have provided it to them with guaranteed rights. some are in effect now.
some about to go into effect. don't let these republicans deny those rights to our families and replace it with nothing care. i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. 9 i can't -- gentleman from georgia? >> i ask unanimous consent that a letter endorsing the bill from the group freedom works be inserted into the record. >> without objection. >> the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen? >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. medical decisions should be made between patients and their doctors. the internal revenue service should not be part of that equation and all americans know now that the i.r.s. has used its tort to improperly target and intimidate certain individuals based on their personal beliefs. 2,000 more i.r.s. agents, more washington broorkts will open the door now to more abuse under obamacare. more targeting, more harassment
of american citizens. physicians know the best care for their patients, not unelected bureaucrats in washington. we should be encouraging patients to take control of their own health care through consumer directed health care plans, not ceding control to the government. i would encourage my colleagues to protect the doctor-patient relationship and do what they can to make sure that government overreach is not involved in health care. i yield back the balance. >> the gentleman from michigan? >> it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to our whip, mr. hoyer of maryland who has devoted so much time in health care in his career. >> the gentleman from maryland, the whip is recognized for three minutes. the gentleman for yielding.
what a perfect bill this is. our republican friends don't like taxes, they don't like the collection of taxes, and of course none of us do. and they don't like affordable care for our citizens. quality care for our citizens. accessable care for our citizens. so with this stroke they can attack both. the gentleman that just spoke asserts that the american people know -- the republicans have made an assertion about the oversight of taxpayers to see whether or not they're committing fraud, i.e., claiming to be social we will organizations when everybody in america knows they are solely political organizations. and the republicans never mentioned it was across the board, not targeted. the afford they don't like that either. they would, as my friend from
texas say, still like to have the insurance companies in charge, not the patient, not the doctor, but the insurance companies. mr. speaker, less than two weeks ago republicans were on this floor for the 38th and 39th time to repeal the affordable care act. the accessable care act. the quality year -- care act. now we have the 40th time we've been at this. the american people of course want to see us working on jobs. they want to see us working on investment in education. they want to see us being able to compete with the world. what do we do? we continue to beat this horse, contrary to my republicans' friends assertions, men's say overwhelmingly when asked do you want repeal or do you want a fix, make it better, do things better, make it more efficient, they opt for the latter overwhelmingly.
but as the gentleman from texas just said, you go to the web site and not two and a half years. not two and a half years, i tell my friend from texas. it's been seven years since 2006 when we started working on this. but there's no fix. no fix on the web site, no fix on this floor. today there are -- their newfound populism is nowhere to be seen as they vote to repeal tax credits andsubsidies designed to make health care for -- more affordable for those same people, working families and small business people who haven't been able to get insurance and are left at risk without it. never met they who a nax -- tax increase they
don't like are pursuing this. one more minute? >> how about an additional 30 seconds? >> mr. speaker, this bill makes all those folks pawns in republicans' single focus quest to undo health care reform at the expense of every other pless -- pressing challenge we face as a nation. it's shameful, mr. speaker, that this house continues to waste the american people's time on health care repeal votes that won't go anywhere and they know it. the senate will not pass this bill. the president will not sign it. we have pressing business that needs immediate attention, finishing appropriateation bills, finishing our work on the budget, ensuring that america with -- can pay its bills and taking action to create jobs. that's what wea -- we ought to be doing, not this continued foolishness. i yield back the balance of my
time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia? >> may i inquire as to the time remaining on each i'd side? >> the gentleman from georgia has 16 minutes remaining and the gentleman from michigan has 13 1/2 minutes we -- remaining the >> thank you. i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the freshman gentleman from oklahoma city. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is interesting that the minority whip would like republicans to help in fixing this bill considering that they weren't interested at all in republican input when they passed it in the middle of the night with a pure party line vote. i think everybody understands that the promise of obamacare has been thoroughly discredited but the worst is yet to come. the authors of the bill promised that it would bring down the cost of health care, but premiums have gone up substantially. they promised that if you like your health care plan and the
doctor you have, you can keep it. now when you go to the healthcare do the vek web site -- healthcare .gov web site it says you may be able to keep your plan. even teamsters union president james hoffa has said the bill will destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week. cave ortunately, they and now companies like hobby lobby are being forced into problem that they provide abortion and other health care services that violate their beliefs. the attitude will beyond a
adow of a doubt carry over into its tag team partnership with h.h.s. in enforcing obamacare. let's pass 2009 and start putting an end to this madness. >>i yield two kind. thank you, mr. speaker. was a silly exercise has suddenly turned into an insane exercise. we understand they do not like the affordable care act. but i beseech my colleagues on the other side to start working to help improve the system and desperate need of reform and make changes along the way as we learn what works and what doesn't. let me inject a few facts into this debate. since the passage of the
affordable care act, the u.s. health-care spending has grown 3.9% in the past three years, the lowest growth rate in 50 years. medicare in a fishery spending rose just point or percent last year, the lowest rate since it was created in 1965. medicaid spending dropped by one percent in 2012. and according to the congressional budget office, medicare and medicaid will spend $1 trillion less than previously projected. more than $15 billion in fraudulent payments have been recaptured under the affordable care act. hospital admissions of pollen for the first time on record, resulting in 70,000 fewer admissions in the second half of last year alone. if more than 250 healthcare organizations are getting paid now according to the quality of
healthcare being developed and no longer the quantity of services being rendered. and finally, the growth in premiums is off the floor, mr. speaker. annual premiums from employee sponsored health care increased four percent in 2012, the smallest increase in the last word seniors. we still have more work to do. but this debate and the effort to delay and defund and dismantle and destroy the affordable care act is not where we need to go as a nation. i encourage my colleagues once again to vote no on this ill- conceived legislation. i yield back the remainder of my time. gentleman from time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. speaker, i appreciate my colleague chastising us to change elements of the -- i believere act
that the gentleman supported one of our efforts to weeks ago to delay the employer mandate. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from michigan. one and yield another one half minutes of my time to the gentleman of california. >> thank you. i rise in opposition to this misnamed piece of legislation. it should be called the 40th time we wasted taxpayer time and money act. this is not new to us. we have seen this before. at we have seen this movie before. 39 times. we know how it ends. this isus to dismantle the affordable care act. we have wasted too much time and too much money on this already. what we should be doing is
working to make the aca better or spending our time trying to legislation.e jobs this bill is particularly cruel because it hits the poorest among us the hardest. and we have seen that movie before also. that is why we have this piece of legislation. this is in response to a national crisis. this did not come about by itself. hospitals and doctors and clinics in all of our districts. they provide 100 billion dollars a year in uncompensated care. families were one layoff away from not having access to healthcare. people with existing conditions that occurred through no fault of their own. maybe they had bad luck with having cancer or gave birth through a c-section. a pre-existing condition and they could not get coverage. people in all of our districts were given a lifetime cap on
their health care. this is accident. it was in response to a crisis. let's get to work. let's get this thing improved. let's put people back to work and stop messing around with this foolishness. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that a letter from americans for tax reform be inserted into the record. i reserve the balance of my time. from michigan.n >> i yield a minute and a half to another member of our committee. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized for one and one half minutes. support ofn america's working families and against this bill. i would ask why you would take away a tax credit, a tax credit that hel working families, for
the first time in many instances, afford insurance. particularly as this majority seems to have never met a tax break a did not like. at least until today. again theime republican majority defend special interest breaks. subsidies for big oil. tax write-offs for big corporations. off as they are laying american workersing more operations overseas. but where is that same zeal today in defending to the class tax cuts for middle-class americans? maybe i should not be surprised. after all this majority has repeatedly tried to undermine the tax credit. wanted hard-working americans to pay the entire credit back if they get a slight increase in pay. crossed somehas bizarre threshold. going through principled
opposition. some will say they have issues with the irs. when we come back after the august break, they will stop the irs from sending income tax refunds. no. this is just an excuse they are using. his bill is one hundred percent about denying americans access to affordable healthcare. in new york, 1.5 you people will be denied tax credits if this bill is enacted. >> second. >> my colleagues, i'm tired of this dog and pony show. political red meat is not what this country needs. we need a congress with a vision for tomorrow. a vision focused on creating jobs and strengthening our economy. not a 40th vote on a new, even more dangerous way to repeal the affordable care act. with that, a yield back the balance of my time.
gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. speaker. letter fromubmit a six taxpayer advocate organizations into the record. >> without objection, it will be inserted into the record. >> may i ask her the amount of time on both sides, please? >> the gentleman from michigan has 14 minutes. the gentleman from georgia has 16 minutes. >> do you have any other speakers? may beve speakers that coming. i am prepared to close at any point. >> ok, we have other speakers. i now yield two minutes to the mber on the smallw york, the business committee. from new yorkady
is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the bill today. anotherourselves in redundant and unproductive debate over the affordable care act. the estimated cost of today's vote is over $1 million. taxpayers.d-working but instead of focusing on jobs and economic growth, we are wasting time and money on denying health coverage to small businesses and their employees. of the application bills have been passed, and yet republicans are continuing their attempts to undermine health reform. this obsession must end. it is -- and move on and stop start tackling the challenges the american people care about. jobs, jobs, jobs, economy.
preventing the iressa from implementing provisions of the affordable care act. it does nothing to help our nation's small businesses. rather, it will keep small employers from taking advantage of the small business health care tax credit, which is already helped over 360,000 small employers and 2 million workers. it will prevent businesses from utilizing the 50% tax credit in the new exchanges next year. today's vote is your responsible and out of touch with americans. we must continue to ensure that quality health coverage is available and utilized by the the sole ofhat are the american economy. i urge the members to vote no.
i yield back my time. the gentleman from missouri. >> i reserve. >> a german from michigan. -- the gentleman from michigan. >> it is my special privilege to yield my time to the person who left our efforts in health care reform as a testimony to her career. the gentlelady from california. >> the gentlelady from california, the minority leader is recognized for one minute. think -- ithe -- i the leader from yielding the time. this is the 40th attempt to hurt the financial well-being of the american people. --bit -- 40 is a number with 40 is a number from with meaning in the bible. but it is fraught with nothing
in trying to overturn the affordable care act as they are trying to do today. when my republican colleagues vote for this bill, they will vote for putting insurance companies back in charge of people's health. when they vote for this bill, they will be voting for an initiative that deprives patients of their rights. of making pre-existing conditions a reason for discrimination. that is what this code does. -- what this vote does. that is the joy of the affordable care act. no longer will being a woman be a pre-existing condition. your annual or lifetime limits are eliminated. insurance companies must spend their money on insurance. that is what people call it. and they must do it in a way care, notes on health
on ceo pay, advertising, and the rest. the 80/20 ratio. people have received millions of dollars already because the insurance companies had to refund holocene money because they were spending too much on much on themselves and not enough on policyholders. so, here we are for the 40th time. what is really sad about it is not only the violence it does to the help of the american people enables themy that to have prevention and wellness and about the health of americans, not just healthcare. 40t is sad about it is for times we have had the opportunity cost of bringing a jobs bill to the floor. a jobs will that is daring. a jobs bill that says, let's make it in america. build the infrastructure of america. strengthen our communities of
education and public safety and the rest. oftead of that, instead passing appropriations bills, the republicans are in this aimless path, taking us into chaos as we go into august, because in september, the moment of truth will be here. the fiscal year will end on september 30. instead of preparing for that, republicans are once again on this fool's errand of making matters worse for the american people. inting insurance companies charge of peoples's health, depriving patients of their this budget challenge is a very serious one. we should not even be leaving here today because we have not done the work necessary to prepare for the end of the fiscal year. wasting theare taxpayers time and money.
our colleagues to vote no on this legislation. i urge the american people to insist that we get down to the people's business of job creation and to find a budget will not destroy the full faith and credit of the united states of american, to find a budget that will grow jobs and the economy. if we don't and we shut down the government, as some on the republican side have said, unless we repealed the affordable care act -- what does that mean to you? it means to you that your 401(k) success is in jeopardy. it means that if you have mortgage interest payments, you probably pay more. your credit card bills will probably go up because of the increase in interest. it is just not right. it does not understand the economic challenges faced by
america's families. they want to maintain their homes. prospects for the future. it is just silliness and is not deserve the time we are taking on the floor, much less a vote by members of congress. with that, i urge a boat -- i urge a vote no. i yield back my time. >> the german from georgia reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan. >> mr. speaker, it is now my special pleasure. as i think everyone knows, the work very closely together. as chairs, mr. waxman and i were able to work with others so closely. i yield with special privilege and leisure two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman.
>> the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, this is a do- nothing congress. it is absolutely pathetic. there are millions of people unemployed. are we working to create jobs? no. we are not trying to help them. what we are doing today for the 40th time is make sure they can't get health insurance. this is an obsession on on the part of the republicans. i was commenting on it the other day in committee. i said it is such an opposition that the laws become the great white whale. they will stop at nothing to kill it. so, here we are. the 40th attempt to repeal the affordable care act. i think it is a disgrace. spends all we have to do? 40 separate times trying to repeal a law that is going to
ofng healthcare to millions americans who have been denied health care opportunities because of pre-existing conditions, because the employer does not provide it to them, because they could not afford it. middled give people the class choices, the competition between choices of health insurance. the prices will drop. the quality will improve. was whole health-care bill raised on republican ideas including a requirement that everyone get health insurance. idea from the heritage foundation. i am astounded we are back here today. the last thing we are going to do before we take our vacations and go home and tell people, help you.can we are trying again in the house of representatives to appeal -- to repeal one bill that has been passed, that can mean so much to
so many. i urge that we defeat this legislation. i yield back the house of my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia? rights reserved. >> the gentleman from michigan. one minute to the ranking member of our subcommittee. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. tomr. speaker, as i listen mr. waxman, he is talking about of session. you might ask, why is this happening here and what is going on? this has happened before. this is the worst nightmare for the republican party. , the american medical association was flat out against the institution of medicare.
was in medical school, they came up to medical schools. some of them said, boys, there is not going to be any medicine in this country. we have got that socialized medicine coming in. and do you know what happened? they made the people so afraid that when they went out to enroll people in medicare, people said, well, i don't want any of that government medicine in my house. look at medicare today. nobody on that side would dare take out medicare because the american people found out that what they were told in the advertising campaign leading up to it was not true. and that is what you're getting here today. untruths. time hasntleman's expired. the gentleman from georgia. ask unanimous, i consent that a letter from 15 or 16 organizations the inserted
into the record. iswithout objection, it entered into the record. >> may i ask a much time both sides has? the gentleman from michigan has two minutes. the german from georgia has 16 minutes. from georgiaman has 16 minutes. >> mr. speaker, are you ready to close? >> i am ready to close. >> i have sat and listened to the debate and many of the slogans we hear repeated again and again and again. i would simply return to the point i made earlier. for a family that makes $40,000 adults working, that does not get coverage at work -- which is true for many americans. maybe 35 million americans have a situation something like that. the affordable care act says starting january 1 for about $40 a week they can buy health
insurance and private insurance companies as good as the members of congress have. what is the plan from the other since they are reviewing this? this bill takes that away. what is the plan from the other side? they will talk about bills they have introduced and letters they have written. there is not one bill. one vote. one day that would answer that question. we eagerly awaits. after 1000 days of the republican number -- the republican majority, the american people eagerly await the answer. i yield back my time. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield myself the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. >> republicans today are using
irs as a trapt -- to express their hatred -- their hatred of health care reform. willssertions that the irs have access to personal healthcare information is wrong wrong, is deliberately misleading. will only receive routine information. name, address, family size, incomes. information needed to provide tax credits. that is it. the rest are falsehoods. i yield back the balance of my time. back hisntleman yield time. the gentleman from georgia. you, mr. speaker. again, it is important for folks to appreciate the republican goal and health care to make certain that every single
american has the highest quality healthcare. we simply believe it ought to be patient centered healthcare and my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about patient centered healthcare, but what they support is washington centered healthcare. washington making the decisions. we believe asians and families and doctors ought to be making the medical -- we believe patients and families and doctors ought to be making the medical decisions. have hr 2300 which is a patient centered bill that make sure everyone has affordable coverage, that everyone has the financial feasibility to purchase coverage that they want, not the big government forces them to buy. the affordability is there, so you do not lose it when you change your job or loose your job. in a patient centered way. not await the government forces you to purchase what they want you to purchase. second, this is not a responsible piece of legislation
, we have heard. mr. speaker, let me suggest that the american people and that this is a responsible piece of legislation. they do not think the irs should have a thing do with their healthcare. i say, this bill is not going anywhere at all. it is a futile attempt. i would remind my colleagues on seven pieces of legislation, law byigned into president obama that defunded or repealed portions of his healthcare law. hr 473 froze the irs budget. $1474, save taxpayers billion by adjusting eligibility for obamacare programs. hr 675 made deductions to the independent advisory board and the irs.
hr 348 saved another 670 million dollars from the boondoggle of the louisiana purchase that was included in the original bill. repealed or changed portions of the affordable care act signed into law by the president of the united states. we have heard heart-wrenching stories by our friends on the other sides about help challenges and illnesses. yes, mr. speaker, there are challenges out there. as a physician i can attest to that, spending 20 years taking care of asians. but americans do not want washington deciding what kind of healthcare they can have or should have. we need patients, families, and doctors making those decisions. it would be preposterous to say that republicans do not like affordable care, quality care, accessible care. nonsense, mr. speaker. nonsense. what we want is the highest quality of care that respects the principles of affordability and accessibility and choices and responsiveness and
innovation. simply what patients and families and doctors to be in charge of healthcare. not washington, d.c. and not the irs. >> the house went on to pass that bill, the 232 to 185.\ billouse also passed a requiring congressional approval of regulations costing more than $100 million. minority whip steny hoyer came to the house for late in the day to speak about the current congressional stalemate guarding budget negotiations. here is a look at that now. >> as theppening our. speaker knows, i am also the minority whip. as the minority whip, at the close of the week, we normally have a colloquy between the majority whip and
myself. that colloquy is to discuss the , to discuss the priorities that each side believes ought to be considered by this house. colloquy have that when the year to come -- excuse me, the week to come is another session. we have now adjourned or will soon adjourn for five weeks. we will not be in session. without doingned the people's business. adjourned without resulting some of the most vexing challenges that confront this congress and our country. withoutadjourned
addressing some of the priorities of the senate, has acted upon and sent to this house. or if they have not sent them to this house, have passed to them. are ready to respond to our initiatives. mr. speaker, that is unfortunate. mr. speaker, i will be talking about in this our -- i probably will not take the whole hour -- but i will be talking about some of the things we have not done that we ought to be doing. some of the things that we ought to be doing rather than taking a five-week break. but let me quickly add, i'm one of the democratic leaders. i do not resize the partisans for this five-week rake, because we normally take the break in
august. so members and their families can take some time, so that members can be home to talk to their constituents, seek their device, seek their counsel, explain what is happening here in washington. at this point in time a rightfully angry group of americans who see their board of directors -- what we call the congress of the united states -- not working very well. not attendant to the significant issues that confront us. the house passed a budget. we passed a budget about 125 days ago. passed a budget about 123 days ago. the way the process is supposed
to work is the way it works in your families, mr. speaker. and in my family. we sit have a dispute, down, we talk about it, we try to come to a resolution. some call that resolution of compromise. a recognition that you have a perspective, i have a perspective, and if we are going to move forward, we need to harmonize those perspectives. that is what democracy is all about. bringing together disparate views from various geographic locations, various interests at heart, and try to resolve those differences and move our country forward. now, understanding that, mr. speaker, understanding the said during -- and the campaign -- he wanted to make sure that the house pursued
regular order and he wanted the senate to pass a budget. they did so. refused to gohas to conference. that is unfortunate. but it is not unique in this house. the senate also passed an immigration bill. that immigration bill tries to deal with one of the most vexing challenges that confront our country. has a largeue that amount of agreements outside this institution. the united states chamber of commerce, representing much of business in america, and the
afl-cio representing organized labor have agreed this immigration bill should go forward. community from california, florida, maine, arizona have essentially agreed. this is a bill which will move us forward. essentially, there is broad- based agreement that the senate bill is something that will create jobs, grow our economy, and make our country more stable. agreement, iral would say almost unanimous agreement, that it will keep our orders secure.
people we do not authorize should not be allowed to come into the country. to make surerking our borders are even more secure. there is unanimity on the issue. appropriatedsenate a large number of dollars to accomplish that objective. have not taken up an immigration bill in this house. and certainly because we have not, we have not gone to conference. and then, mr. speaker, we took up the farm bill. significantly after the senate had passed a bipartisan bill dealing with agriculture. and dealing with assistance to those in america, the richest country on the face of the earth, who were going hungry, a
large number of whom are children living in america. the committee on agriculture the a bipartisan bill in last congress and it was never brought to the floor by my republican friends. this year, the committee also passed out a bipartisan bill that was brought to the floor. it could have and should have been passed as a bipartisan vote. not because i agreed with all of it, but because it was appropriate to go to conference with on this important subject. threeblican friends added the result were to those of need
in america. as a result, we did not vote for it, but that is not why it will, mr. speaker. it fails because 62 public and -- 62 republicans voted against a bill that came out of committee with every republican voting for it. compromise seems very difficult for some people in this house. all, it is remind us absolutely essential. we then passed a farm bill which said, unlike the last half a century, we would drop food assistance of the needy in america. speaker, my faith tells me
to try to feed the hungry. house the homeless. " the naked. naked.he the attend to be least of these. the bill that we passed, for the first time in half a century, left out the neediest in america. in the course of passing that rulesthe chairman of the committee, mr. speaker, said passing this bill, said that we could go to conference with the clear implication at that point in time because the senate will does take care of the needy, who ,re hungry, adults and children along with the needs of our farmers, upon whom all of us
rely -- the implication fairly was with this bill we can go to conference. knowpeaker, you and i both we have not gone to conference. here with much of the business of america undone, on attendant -- unattended, without an effort to reach compromise. speaker, on september 30 the authorization for the operation of government and the funding thereof will come to an end. so it will be necessary for us to come to agreement. , but i know of none, that
there are plans being made to use those five weeks to reach a compromise, an agreement, await forward to the shore the funding of our government and the operations so critical to so many millions, not only here, but around the world. mr. speaker, we began the july eriod with a measure of optimism, with four full weeks of session. met that optimism. hope was much reason to this house could make serious headway on the appropriations bills and compromise on student loans. we passed that student loan optimize this wednesday. that was a good thing to do and it was along the lines the
president proposed some months ago. wouldublican colleagues rightfully say it was along the lines that they have proposed and passed this house. i senate colleagues will say it is the compromise that the senate forms and we passed. time, the majority a strategy for moving the appropriations bill through this house has utterly and completely failed. , or the ryanet retreat as i call it, has failed. full consecutive weeks in which to get things done, we have not enacted a single upper creations bill -- a single appropriations bill that was consistent with the budget control act of 2011 or this
year's ryan budget. in fact we have not enacted a single appropriations bill, period. thisssed bills through house, but we have not been able to get to compromise. and that is not unusual. we have found the appropriations process difficult over the past two years. but it was still an indication of failure to attempt to reach compromise that we have not gone to a budget conference to determine what numbers we will use. because if you cannot agree numbers, it is impossible to agree on legislation. frankly, mr. speaker, i sadly friendst my majority
have not even had the courage or in my opinion the and electoral honesty to go to conference on the budget to resolve these differences. why? cause i believe that mr. ryan's belief is any compromise he made would not be supported i his by his party. because they do not want to compromise. asthma too many of our republican colleagues. regular order, it seems, means simply their order. as i said, we are leaving for the august recess with just nine legislative days remaining until the end of the fiscal year. nine days. scheduled fors
legislative business between now and september 30. nine days. , not a single appropriations bill has been sent to the president's desk. a bill we were considering this week, supposed to be a principal item of business this week was taken from the floor because it did not have the support of the majority party. this is not a recipe for responsible of ernest why the majority. it is a recipe for another manufactured crisis. speaker, our economy, our businesses, and our middle-class families cannot and ought not -- as a result of the congress's failure to do its
job. there is an irrational sequester policy they refuse to prevent that have now fully embraced. why do i say they fully embraced it? it gets to their number without them having to make one single choice of cutting a single item. it simply says this is the number. meet it. no prioritization. no choice. no decision. the ryan budget passed this house in march without a single democratic vote. an endorsement in theory by this republican congress that cuts even deeper than the sequester proposes. we say parenthetically a lot of
my republican colleagues will stand at that podium or one of these podiums and say, this is the president's sequester. , america needs to know that is not true. and i believe too many who make that statement know what not to be true. -- know it not to be true. to pass legislation in this house in the middle of july of we are going to reach certain numbers, and if we don't, we are going to have a sequester. mr. speaker, you may recall that was the republican cap and balance l. . whose policy was to
have a sequester it the numbers set forth were not reached. it was included in the bill which was a compromise to reach resolution so that america did not default on its bills. i was not for the sequester. the president was not for the sequester. we democrats voted overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, perhaps unanimously, against that cap and balance will and it sequester. why? because cutting across the board the highest priority and lowest priority by the same percentage is in a rational policy. no family in america would do it. esther speaker, the example i use is -- mr. speaker, the
example i use is someone in the family loses their job. the income goes down. they have a budget for food. they have a budget for movies. the sequester says take 10% from food and 10% from movies. no rational family in america would do this. we are not going to the movies, but we are going to keep food on the table. that is the rational judgment to make. but that is not what the sequester says. having said that, we have offered amendments seven times. in the last six months. sequester,e the while at the same time reducing the deficit by the same amount. seven times.
we were refused by the majority party the opportunity to even offer that amendment. the speaker says he wants, to have the house boat its well. and if they did not agree with it, they could have voted against it. but they didn't want to deal with our amendments, because they like the sequester. because the sequester gets them to their number without them having to make a decision on cutting a single thing. then, when.ed turns to practice in the ryan theory turns to practice in the ryan budget, even the republicans cannot live
it. as the chairman of the appropriations committee said the other day, this is the chairman from kentucky, my friend with whom i have worked many years as a member of the heropriations committee -- characterized the cuts included in the ryan budget as, and i unrealistic and ill- conceived." that is the republican chairman of the appropriations committee saying that the ryan budget is unrealistic and ill-conceived. sequesterpolicy of remains, mr. speaker, and out the trust around the neck of the american and our economy. single democrat in this house or in the senate, not a single democrat, mr. speaker.
ryan budgetief the did not pass this congress. -- could not pass this congress. pro--sequester spending cuts -- pro-sequester spending cuts simply do not work. week'ss transportation/hud debacle rues it. i want to quote again the chairman of the committee. "with this action, the houses declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just three three ago there go -- months ago." let me make it clear. no democrat had the opportunity to vote on this. we were not for it. but the decision was made completely on the majority side of the aisle that they did not
have the votes for their bill. they could not implement the very budget that was adopted just three months ago. i believe theer, house has made its choice. said chairman rogers. "sequestration and it's unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to an end." rogers, republican, conservative, kentucky, chairman of the recreations committee. sequestration must be brought to an end. of halre the words rogers. not my words. his words. rogersnow that chairman is not the only member of his party who is fed up with the tea party faction and their extreme
the hager. as he prepared to go home to our districts in august and hear their concerns about jobs and our economy and the pain of sequester's senseless cuts, i have spoken to hundreds of employees who have worked in our defense establishment, who are lamenting the fact not only did they will be forced to take off pay, and week for no they can't -- they are lamenting enough can stand, and other troubled parts of the they need the support we give them from here in this country and indeed around the for the workforce and dod,
the department of defense. all the time. not just four days a week. we prepare to go home to our districts and the month of august and hear their concerns and the pain of the sequester's senseless cuts, i hope we can turn the page of the july work and return in a different spirit. , september need not be july's second act. in the short time we have left, just nine legislative days before the fiscal year ends, i would urge the speaker to take a different path. instead of taking the familiar road of partisanship, posturing, let the voice of compromise and shared accomplishment, one we in know as "the road less
traveled by." a wonderful poem by one of america's greatest poets. two roads diverged in a wood. i, i took the one less traveled by. and that, he said, has made all the difference. and restingicult challenges to address in a short time. passing a budget. -- replacing the sequester. averting a default on our debt. a default that would be catastrophic were america, its people, its economy, and would have ramifications throughout the world. we can begin, mr. speaker, by going to conference on the
budget and allowing both sides to sit down and start working on an agreement. speaker,s to be, mr. the road less traveled by. road that leads to positive, constructive, supportable results. not backwards. a road to constructive compromise, not destructive confrontation. and the results that benefit our people and our economy. mr. speaker, such a road would surely make all the difference. for this congress and for this country. mr. speaker, we need to work together. speaker,rich, a former , reached a served
compromise with president clinton. were a lot of people on his side of the aisle that did not want to see an agreement between president clinton and speaker gingrich. it was the funding of government. the basic responsibility this congress has or any board of directors of any enterprise has. and mr. gingrich stood at that talked mr. speaker, and to what he referred to as his perfectionist caucus. the people who wanted it that way, and thatir would not compromise for a road other than their way. told his caucus, look. i know this is not exactly what
you want, but the american people have elected a president of another party. and they have a like did a senate -- they have elected a senate with a lot of democrats and their and yes, some republicans who do not agree with us. and they have also elected a lot of democrats to the house of representatives. obviously, the majority of the members of the house were republicans. but if the country was going to move forward, if there was going to be a positive resolution to the conflict that exists between differing points of view, that there would need to be compromise. and he admonished that caucus to understand that this was a democracy, not a dictatorship. and that agreement and
compromise was the essence of what democracy meant. so, mr. speaker, i hope over the five weeks yet to come that members will reflect, communicate with our citizens, and come to an understanding of the necessity to act not just , not just to way reflect what i want, but to reflect what we as a country working together can accomplish. that,eaker, if we do america will continue to be the greatest country on the face of the earth, providing opportunities for our children and our families, our workers and our seniors, and continuing to be that shining city on a
hill of which ronald reagan spoke so glowingly. --her speaker, let us hope mr. speaker, let us hope in these five weeks we learn how to work together. that is what our people want. and as importantly, that is what our people need. yield back the balance of my time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> c-span, we bring congress directly to you, offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable industry 34 years ago and funded by yournow, you can watch us in. tonight, on c-span. acting commissioner of the irs
addresses accusations that his agency targeted conservative groups. house debate on blocking implementation of the affordable care act. senators tom harkin and dick durbin hold a town hall meeting on immigration. acting irs commissioner daniel werfel testified at a hearing about identity theft that quickly changed topics to accusations of political targeting of conservative groups. here is part of that hearing. >> however, i have some frustrations today. as you know, a number of months ago, the president made it clear that the behavior that occurred